| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Ilya Gladyshev <ilya(dot)v(dot)gladyshev(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: optimizing pg_upgrade's once-in-each-database steps | 
| Date: | 2024-08-10 15:35:46 | 
| Message-ID: | ZreI0vpZoQfoocDq@nathan | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 10:17:27AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 04:06:16PM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote:
>>> Furthermore, most of the callbacks should do almost nothing for a given
>>> upgrade, and since pg_upgrade runs on the server, client/server round-trip
>>> time should be pretty low.
>> 
>> To my mind, that makes pipelining make more sense, you throw out N queries,
>> most of which are trivial, and by the time you cycle back around and start
>> digesting result sets via callbacks, more of the queries have finished
>> because they were waiting on the query ahead of them in the pipeline, not
>> waiting on a callback to finish consuming its assigned result set and then
>> launching the next task query.
> 
> My assumption is that the "waiting for a callback before launching the next
> query" time will typically be pretty short in practice.  I could try
> measuring it...
Another option might be to combine all the queries for a task into a single
string and then send that in one PQsendQuery() call.  That may be a simpler
way to eliminate the time between queries.
-- 
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joseph Koshakow | 2024-08-10 15:41:31 | Re: Remove dependence on integer wrapping | 
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-08-10 15:18:31 | Re: SPI_connect, SPI_connect_ext return type |