Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS

From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Luc Vlaming <luc(at)swarm64(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS
Date: 2020-12-10 01:43:15
Message-ID: CALj2ACWZ9z00E=vBgPKG+nqzUMD4hVtg71Grb2+DGBH0PYySew@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:16 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:24 PM Hou, Zhijie <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm not quite sure how to address this. Can we not allow the planner
> > > > to consider that the select is for CTAS and check only after the
> > > > planning is done for the Gather node and other checks?
> > > >
> > >
> > > IIUC, you are saying that we should not influence the cost of gather node
> > > even when the insertion would be done by workers? I think that should be
> > > our fallback option anyway but that might miss some paths to be considered
> > > parallel where the cost becomes more due to parallel_tuple_cost (aka tuple
> > > transfer cost). I think the idea is we can avoid the tuple transfer cost
> > > only when Gather is the top node because only at that time we can push
> > > insertion down, right? How about if we have some way to detect the same
> > > before calling generate_useful_gather_paths()? I think when we are calling
> > > apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths() in grouping_planner(), if the
> > > query_level is 1, it is for CTAS, and it doesn't have a chance to create
> > > UPPER_REL (doesn't have grouping, order, limit, etc clause) then we can
> > > probably assume that the Gather will be top_node. I am not sure about this
> > > but I think it is worth exploring.
> > >
> >
> > I took a look at the parallel insert patch and have the same idea.
> > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/31/2844/
> >
> > * Consider generating Gather or Gather Merge paths. We must only do this
> > * if the relation is parallel safe, and we don't do it for child rels to
> > * avoid creating multiple Gather nodes within the same plan. We must do
> > * this after all paths have been generated and before set_cheapest, since
> > * one of the generated paths may turn out to be the cheapest one.
> > */
> > if (rel->consider_parallel && !IS_OTHER_REL(rel))
> > generate_useful_gather_paths(root, rel, false);
> >
> > IMO Gatherpath created here seems the right one which can possible ignore parallel cost if in CTAS.
> > But We need check the following parse option which will create path to be the parent of Gatherpath here.
> >
> > if (root->parse->rowMarks)
> > if (limit_needed(root->parse))
> > if (root->parse->sortClause)
> > if (root->parse->distinctClause)
> > if (root->parse->hasWindowFuncs)
> > if (root->parse->groupClause || root->parse->groupingSets || root->parse->hasAggs || root->root->hasHavingQual)
> >
>
> Yeah, and as I pointed earlier, along with this we also need to
> consider that the RelOptInfo must be the final target(top level rel).
>

Attaching v10 patch set that includes the change suggested above for
ignoring parallel tuple cost and also few more test cases. I split the
patch as per Amit's suggestion. v10-0001 contains parallel inserts
code without planner tuple cost changes and test cases. v10-0002 has
required changes for ignoring planner tuple cost calculations.

Please review it further.

After the review and addressing all the comments, I plan to make some
code common so that it can be used for Parallel Inserts in REFRESH
MATERIALIZED VIEW. Thoughts?

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v10-0001-Parallel-Inserts-in-CREATE-TABLE-AS.patch application/x-patch 60.7 KB
v10-0002-Tuple-Cost-Adjustment-for-Parallel-Inserts-in-CTAS.patch application/x-patch 8.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2020-12-10 01:44:33 Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw connection caching - cause remote sessions linger till the local session exit
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-12-10 01:41:06 Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist