On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I had what seems to me a remarkably good idea, though maybe someone else
> can spot a problem with it. Given that we've decided to run the
> modifying sub-queries all with the same command counter ID, they are
> logically executing "in parallel". The current implementation takes no
> advantage of that fact, though: it's based around the idea of running
> the updates strictly sequentially. I think we should change it so that
> the updates happen physically, not only logically, concurrently.
> Specifically, I'm imagining getting rid of the patch's additions to
> InitPlan and ExecutePlan that find all the modifying sub-queries and
> force them to be cycled to completion before the main plan runs.
> Just run the main plan and let it pull tuples from the CTEs as needed.
> Then, in ExecutorEnd, cycle any unfinished ModifyTable nodes to
> completion before shutting down the plan. (In the event of an error,
> we'd never get to ExecutorEnd, but it doesn't matter since whatever
> updates we did apply are nullified anyhow.)
> This has a number of immediate and future implementation benefits:
> 1. RETURNING tuples that aren't actually needed by the main plan
> don't need to be buffered anywhere. (ExecutorEnd would just pull
> directly from the ModifyTable nodes, ignoring their parent CTE
> nodes, in all cases.)
> 2. In principle, in many common cases the RETURNING tuples wouldn't have
> to be buffered at all, but could be consumed on-the-fly. I think that
> right now the CTEScan nodes might still buffer the tuples so they can
> regurgitate them in case of being rescanned, but it's not hard to see
> how that could be improved later if it doesn't work immediately.
> 3. The code could be significantly simpler. Instead of that rather
> complex and fragile logic in InitPlan to try to locate all the
> ModifyTable nodes and their CTEScan parents, we could just have
> ModifyTable nodes add themselves to a list in the EState during
> ExecInitNode. Then ExecutorEnd just traverses that list.
> However, the real reason for doing it isn't any of those, but rather
> to establish the principle that the executions of the modifying
> sub-queries are interleaved not sequential. We're never going to be
> able to do any significant optimization of such queries if we have to
> preserve the behavior that the sub-queries execute sequentially.
> And I think it's inevitable that users will manage to build such an
> assumption into their queries if the first release with the feature
> behaves that way.
I completely agree. Actually, I thought we had already agreed on the
design you just proposed.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-02-25 15:30:42|
|Subject: Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-02-25 14:58:36|
|Subject: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?|