From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Effect of changing the value for PARALLEL_TUPLE_QUEUE_SIZE |
Date: | 2017-06-02 13:08:50 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ5Z7gzOSK+mEe7jMGKBtbdH5XWc5xPampAYWRi7dmSqg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Your reasoning sounds sensible to me. I think the other way to attack
> this problem is that we can maintain some local queue in each of the
> workers when the shared memory queue becomes full. Basically, we can
> extend your "Faster processing at Gather node" patch [1] such that
> instead of fixed sized local queue, we can extend it when the shm
> queue become full. I think that way we can handle both the problems
> (worker won't stall if shm queues are full and workers can do batched
> writes in shm queue to avoid the shm queue communication overhead) in
> a similar way.
We still have to bound the amount of memory that we use for queueing
data in some way.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-06-02 13:15:20 | Re: Effect of changing the value for PARALLEL_TUPLE_QUEUE_SIZE |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-06-02 13:01:42 | Re: Effect of changing the value for PARALLEL_TUPLE_QUEUE_SIZE |