On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 08:12:34AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > The concept of clause parallelism for backend worker is close to the
> > concept of clause shippability introduced in Postgres-XC. In the case of
> > XC, the equivalent of the master backend is a backend located on a node
> > called Coordinator that merges and organizes results fetched in parallel
> > from remote nodes where data scans occur (on nodes called Datanodes). The
> > backends used for tuple scans across Datanodes share the same data
> > visibility as they use the same snapshot and transaction ID as the
> backend
> > on Coordinator. This is different from the parallelism as there is no
> idea
> > of snapshot import to worker backends.
> Worker backends would indeed share snapshot and XID.
> > However, the code in XC planner used for clause shippability evaluation
> is
> > definitely worth looking at just considering the many similarities it
> > shares with parallelism when evaluating if a given clause can be executed
> > on a worker backend or not. It would be a waste to implement twice the
> same
> > thing is there is code already available.
> Agreed.  Local parallel query is very similar to distributed query; the
> specific IPC cost multipliers differ, but that's about it.  I hope we can
> benefit from XC's experience in this area.
I believe the parallel execution is much easier to be done if the data is
partitioned.  Of course it is possible to make only the sort operation
parallel but then the question would be how to split and pass each tuple to
workers.  XC and Greenplum use notion of hash distributed table that
enables the parallel sort (XC doesn't perform parallel sort on replicated
table, I guess).  For postgres, I don't think hash distributed table is
foreseeable option, but MergeAppend over inheritance is a good choice to
run in parallel.  You won't even need to modify many lines of sort
execution code if you correctly dispatch the work, as it's just to split
and assign the subnode of query plan to workers.  Transactions and locks
will be tricky though, and we might end up introducing small set of
snapshot sharing infra for the former and notion of session id rather than
process id for the latter.  I don't think SnapshotNow is the problem as
anyway executor is reading catalogs with that today.


Hitoshi Harada

Reply via email to