|From:||Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Hubert Zhang <hzhang(at)pivotal(dot)io>|
|Cc:||pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Gang Xiong <gxiong(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Ning Yu <nyu(at)pivotal(dot)io>|
|Subject:||Re: Yet another vectorized engine|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 04.12.2019 12:13, Hubert Zhang wrote:
> 3. Why you have to implement your own plan_tree_mutator and not using
> I also want to replace plan node, e.g. Agg->CustomScan(with VectorAgg
> implementation). expression_tree_mutator cannot be used to mutate plan
> node such as Agg, am I right?
O, sorry, I see.
> 4. As far as I understand you now always try to replace SeqScan
> with your custom vectorized scan. But it makes sense only if there
> are quals for this scan or aggregation is performed.
> In other cases batch+unbatch just adds extra overhead, doesn't it?
> Probably extra overhead for heap format and query like 'select i from
> t;' without qual, projection, aggregation.
> But with column store, VectorScan could directly read batch, and no
> additional batch cost. Column store is the better choice for OLAP queries.
But will it be true for the query with a lot of joins?
select * from T1 join T2 on (T1.pk=T2.fk) join T3 on (T2.pk=T3.fk) join
How can batching improve performance in this case?
Also if query contains LIMIT clause or cursors, then batching can cause
fetching of useless records (which never will be requested by client).
> Can we conclude that it would be better to use vector engine for OLAP
> queries and row engine for OLTP queries.
> 5. Throwing and catching exception for queries which can not be
> vectorized seems to be not the safest and most efficient way of
> handling such cases.
> May be it is better to return error code in plan_tree_mutator and
> propagate this error upstairs?
> Yes, as for efficiency, another way is to enable some plan node to be
> vectorized and leave other nodes not vectorized and add batch/unbatch
> layer between them(Is this what you said "propagate this error
> upstairs"). As you mentioned, this could introduce additional
> overhead. Is there any other good approaches?
> What do you mean by not safest?
> PG catch will receive the ERROR, and fallback to the original
> non-vectorized plan.
The problem with catching and ignoring exception was many times
discussed in hackers.
Unfortunately Postgres PG_TRY/PG_CATCH mechanism is not analog of
exception mechanism in more high level languages, like C++, Java...
It doesn't perform stack unwind. If some resources (files, locks,
memory,...) were obtained before throwing error, then them are not
Only rollback of transaction is guaranteed to release all resources. And
it actually happen in case of normal error processing.
But if you catch and ignore exception , trying to continue execution,
then it can cause many problems.
May be in your case it is not a problem, because you know for sure where
error can happen: it is thrown by plan_tree_mutator
and looks like there are no resources obtained by this function. But in
any case overhead of setjmp is much higher than of explicit checks of
So checking return codes will not actually add some noticeable overhead
except code complication by adding extra checks.
But in can be hidden in macros which are used in any case (like MUTATE).
> 7. How vectorized scan can be combined with parallel execution (it
> is already supported in9.6, isn't it?)
> We didn't implement it yet. But the idea is the same as non parallel
> one. Copy the current parallel scan and implement vectorized Gather,
> keeping their interface to be VectorTupleTableSlot.
> Our basic idea to reuse most of the current PG executor logic, and
> make them vectorized, then tuning performance gradually.
Parallel scan is scattering pages between parallel workers.
To fill VectorTupleSlot with data you may need more than one page
(unless you make a decision that it can fetch tuples only from single page).
So it should be somehow take in account specific of parallel search.
Also there is special nodes for parallel search so if we want to provide
parallel execution for vectorized operations we need also to substitute
this nodes with
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2019-12-04 14:14:07||Dumping/restoring fails on inherited generated column|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2019-12-04 14:03:26||Re: BUG #16147: postgresql 12.1 (from homebrew) - pg_restore -h localhost --jobs=2 crashes|