On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:45 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-04-15 20:36:39 +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> > I was thinking from this point of view - the sooner we introduce
> > parallelism in the process, the greater the benefits.
>
> I don't really agree. Sure, that's true from a theoretical perspective,
> but the incremental gains may be very small, and the cost in complexity
> very high. If we can get single threaded splitting of rows to be >4GB/s,
> which should very well be attainable, the rest of the COPY work is going
> to dominate the time. We shouldn't add complexity to parallelize more
> of the line splitting, caring too much about scalable datastructures,
> etc when the bottleneck after some straightforward optimization is
> usually still in the parallelized part.
>
> I'd expect that for now we'd likely hit scalability issues in other
> parts of the system first (e.g. extension locks, buffer mapping).
>
Got your point. In this particular case, a single producer is fast
enough (or probably we can make it fast enough) to generate enough
chunks for multiple consumers so that they don't stay idle and wait
for work.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
