Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan
Date: 2017-01-04 07:02:09
Message-ID: CAFiTN-uxwdBOxmykAMbwTOrxQaHrYRKP80=1xf98VBPOKzwyHQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Other the another option is, that we can always make caller to provide
> an allocator. But this way every new user for simple hash need to take
> care of having allocator.
>
> What is your opinion?

Attached is the new version of the patch which implements it the way I
described.

>
>
>>This also needs docs, including a warning that just
>> using an allocator in shared memory does *NOT* allow the hash table to be
>> used in shared memory in the general case.
>
> Make sense.
Added the Warning.

I have also fixed some bug in parallel bitmap heap scan
(path.parallel_workers was not initialised before calling
cost_bitmap_heap_scan in some cases, so it was taking the
uninitialized value). Patch attached.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
hash-support-alloc-free-v6.patch application/octet-stream 5.0 KB
parallel-bitmap-heap-scan-v6.patch application/octet-stream 58.2 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-01-04 07:02:11 Re: Commit fest 2017-01 will begin soon!
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-01-04 06:46:54 Re: Potential data loss of 2PC files