From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes. |
Date: | 2021-05-11 09:55:05 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK15h+GJxFA6nKWQ2RSO8TUgNWn_3+h4DJzvvW==A_Wm02g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:27 PM Andrey Lepikhov
<a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> On 11/5/21 12:24, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> >> -> Append (actual rows=3000 loops=1)
> >> -> Async Foreign Scan on f1 (actual rows=0 loops=1)
> >> -> Async Foreign Scan on f2 (actual rows=0 loops=1)
> >> -> Foreign Scan on f3 (actual rows=3000 loops=1)
> >>
> >> Here we give preference to the synchronous scan. Why?
> >
> > This would be expected behavior, and the reason is avoid performance
> > degradation; you might think it would be better to execute the async
> > Foreign Scan nodes more aggressively, but it would require
> > waiting/polling for file descriptor events many times, which is
> > expensive and might cause performance degradation. I think there is
> > room for improvement, though.
> Yes, I agree with you. Maybe you can add note in documentation on
> async_capable, for example:
> "... Synchronous and asynchronous scanning strategies can be mixed by
> optimizer in one scan plan of a partitioned table or an 'UNION ALL'
> command. For performance reasons, synchronous scans executes before the
> first of async scan. ..."
+1 But I think this is an independent issue, so I think it would be
better to address the issue separately.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amul Sul | 2021-05-11 10:08:18 | Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-05-11 09:54:56 | Re: Remove "FROM" in "DELETE FROM" when using tab-completion |