On 22/2/2024 06:42, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 7:34 PM Andrei Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> I see in [1] that the reporter mentioned a delay between the error
>> message in parallel HashJoin and the return control back from PSQL. Your
>> patch might reduce this delay.
>> Also, I have the same complaint from users who processed gigabytes of
>> data in parallel HashJoin. Presumably, they also stuck into the unlink
>> of tons of temporary files. So, are you going to do something with this
>> code?
>
> Yeah, right. I will aim to get this into the tree next week. First,
> there are a couple of minor issues to resolve around freeing that
> Heikki mentioned. Then there is the question of whether we think this
> might be a candidate for back-patching, given the complaints you
> mention. Opinions?
The code is related to performance, not a bug. Also, it adds one
external function into the 'sharedtuplestore.h'. IMO, it isn't worth it
to make back-patches.
>
> I would add that the problems you reach when you get to very large
> number of partitions are hard (see several very long threads about
> extreme skew for one version of the problem, but even with zero/normal
> skewness and perfect estimation of the number of partitions, if you
> ask a computer to partition 42TB of data into partitions that fit in a
> work_mem suitable for a Commodore 64, it's gonna hurt on several
> levels) and this would only slightly improve one symptom. One idea
> that might improve just the directory entry and file descriptor
> aspect, would be to scatter the partitions into (say) 1MB chunks
> within the file, and hope that the file system supports holes (a bit
> like logtape.c's multiplexing but I wouldn't do it quite like that).
Thanks, I found in [1] good entry point to dive into this issue.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+hUKGKDbv+5uiJZDdB1wttkMPFs9CDb6=02Qxitq4am-KBM_A@mail.gmail.com
--
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional
