From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins. |
Date: | 2017-12-30 13:51:26 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=3GL7H3vxQb0LTJ9KnKhpnvaqOK=yn9p-O8zyjxRgXntA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> ! Buckets: 1024 (originally 2048) Batches: 1 (originally 1) Memory Usage: 0kB
>>> ! Execution time: 243.120 ms
>>>
>>> I don't have enough insight to be totally sure what this means, but the
>>> "Memory Usage: 0kB" bit is obviously bogus, so I'd venture that at least
>>> part of the issue is failure to return stats from a worker.
>>
>> Hmm. Yeah, that seems quite likely -- thanks. Investigating now.
>
> This is explained by the early exit case in
> ExecParallelHashEnsureBatchAccessors(). With just the right timing,
> it finishes up not reporting the true nbatch number, and never calling
> ExecParallelHashUpdateSpacePeak().
Hi Tom,
You mentioned that prairiedog sees the problem about one time in
thirty. Would you mind checking if it goes away with this patch
applied?
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix-phj-explain.patch | application/octet-stream | 8.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-12-30 16:16:34 | Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins. |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-12-29 21:36:45 | pgsql: Fix typo |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2017-12-30 14:07:02 | What does Time.MAX_VALUE actually represent? |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-12-30 13:08:22 | Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use |