Re: Parallel Hash take II

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleg Golovanov <rentech(at)mail(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Parallel Hash take II
Date: 2017-09-01 23:42:49
Message-ID: CAEepm=067qzQOvjSpAmMRXmXBgxTRmZX1hObUsi=_SRzepfqsw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Thomas Munro
>>> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Check out ExecReScanGather(): it shuts down and waits for all workers
>>>> to complete, which makes the assumptions in ExecReScanHashJoin() true.
>>>> If a node below Gather but above Hash Join could initiate a rescan
>>>> then the assumptions would not hold. I am not sure what it would mean
>>>> though and we don't generate any such plans today to my knowledge. It
>>>> doesn't seem to make sense for the inner side of Nested Loop to be
>>>> partial. Have I missed something here?
>>>
>>> I bet this could happen, although recent commits have demonstrated
>>> that my knowledge of how PostgreSQL handles rescans is less than
>>> compendious. Suppose there's a Nested Loop below the Gather and above
>>> the Hash Join, implementing a join condition that can't give rise to a
>>> parameterized path, like a.x + b.x = 0.
>>
>> Hmm. I still don't see how that could produce a rescan of a partial
>> path without an intervening Gather, and I would really like to get to
>> the bottom of this.
>
> I'm thinking about something like this:
>
> Gather
> -> Nested Loop
> -> Parallel Seq Scan
> -> Hash Join
> -> Seq Scan
> -> Parallel Hash
> -> Parallel Seq Scan
>
> The hash join has to be rescanned for every iteration of the nested loop.

I think you mean:

Gather
-> Nested Loop
-> Parallel Seq Scan
-> Parallel Hash Join
-> Parallel Seq Scan
-> Parallel Hash
-> Parallel Seq Scan

... but we can't make plans like that and they would produce nonsense
output. The Nested Loop's inner plan is partial, but
consider_parallel_nestloop only makes plans with parallel-safe but
non-partial ("complete") inner paths.

/*
* consider_parallel_nestloop
* Try to build partial paths for a joinrel by joining a
partial path for the
* outer relation to a complete path for the inner relation.
*

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-09-01 23:44:18 Re: Adding -E switch to pg_dumpall
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-09-01 22:45:31 Re: Parallel Hash take II