Re: Effect of changing the value for PARALLEL_TUPLE_QUEUE_SIZE

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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