Re: ice-broker scan thread

From: "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>, "Pollard, Mike" <mpollard(at)cincom(dot)com>
Cc: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ice-broker scan thread
Date: 2005-11-29 23:42:27
Message-ID: BFB22763.14A58%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff,

On 11/29/05 9:35 AM, "Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:45 -0500, Pollard, Mike wrote:
>
>> Anyway, what I did was the following. When doing a sequential scan, we
>> were starting at the beginning of the table and scanning forward. If I
>> threw up some threads to read ahead, then my user thread and my read
>> ahead threads would thrash on trying to lock the buffer slots. So, I
>> had the read ahead threads start at some distance into the table, and
>> work toward the beginning.
>
> I believe this is commonly called a synchronous scan.

I think sync scan refers to the use of a scanner shared among concurrent
queries, where they can join a scan in progress from it's current location.

It sounds like the logic could be shared. Sync scan (as I've described
above) is another important optimization we'd like to see.

- Luke

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-11-29 23:51:53 Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2005-11-29 22:53:38 Re: slow IN() clause for many cases