Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Etsuro Fujita
Subject Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes.
Date
Msg-id CAPmGK15h+GJxFA6nKWQ2RSO8TUgNWn_3+h4DJzvvW==A_Wm02g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes.  (Andrey Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes.
Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes.
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:27 PM Andrey Lepikhov
<a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On 11/5/21 12:24, Etsuro Fujita wrote:

> >>      ->  Append (actual rows=3000 loops=1)
> >>            ->  Async Foreign Scan on f1 (actual rows=0 loops=1)
> >>            ->  Async Foreign Scan on f2 (actual rows=0 loops=1)
> >>            ->  Foreign Scan on f3 (actual rows=3000 loops=1)
> >>
> >> Here we give preference to the synchronous scan. Why?
> >
> > This would be expected behavior, and the reason is avoid performance
> > degradation; you might think it would be better to execute the async
> > Foreign Scan nodes more aggressively, but it would require
> > waiting/polling for file descriptor events many times, which is
> > expensive and might cause performance degradation.  I think there is
> > room for improvement, though.
> Yes, I agree with you. Maybe you can add note in documentation on
> async_capable, for example:
> "... Synchronous and asynchronous scanning strategies can be mixed by
> optimizer in one scan plan of a partitioned table or an 'UNION ALL'
> command. For performance reasons, synchronous scans executes before the
> first of async scan. ..."

+1  But I think this is an independent issue, so I think it would be
better to address the issue separately.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove "FROM" in "DELETE FROM" when using tab-completion
Next
From: Amul Sul
Date:
Subject: Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY