| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | bucoo(at)sohu(dot)com |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: parallel distinct union and aggregate support patch |
| Date: | 2020-11-27 15:55:25 |
| Message-ID: | 937fa586-1d97-c732-47b8-1697ac0f6360@iki.fi |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I also had a quick look at the patch and the comments made so far. Summary:
1. The performance results are promising.
2. The code needs comments.
Regarding the design:
Thomas Munro mentioned the idea of a "Parallel Repartition" node that
would redistribute tuples like this. As I understand it, the difference
is that this BatchSort implementation collects all tuples in a tuplesort
or a tuplestore, while a Parallel Repartition node would just
redistribute the tuples to the workers, without buffering. The receiving
worker could put the tuples to a tuplestore or sort if needed.
I think a non-buffering Reparttion node would be simpler, and thus
better. In these patches, you have a BatchSort node, and batchstore, but
a simple Parallel Repartition node could do both. For example, to
implement distinct:
Gather
- > Unique
-> Sort
-> Parallel Redistribute
-> Parallel Seq Scan
And a Hash Agg would look like this:
Gather
- > Hash Agg
-> Parallel Redistribute
-> Parallel Seq Scan
I'm marking this as Waiting on Author in the commitfest.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-11-27 16:15:27 | Re: Online verification of checksums |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-27 15:29:24 | Re: configure and DocBook XML |