On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One strange behaviour, after increasing number of processor for VM,
> max_parallel_degree=0; is also performing better.

So, you went from 6 vCPUs to 8?  In general, adding more CPUs means
that there is less contention for CPU time, but if you already had 6
CPUs and nothing else running, I don't know why the backend running
the query would have had a problem getting a whole CPU to itself.  If
you previously only had 1 or 2 CPUs then there might have been some
CPU competition with background processes, but if you had 6 then I
don't know why the max_parallel_degree=0 case got faster with 8.
Anyway, I humbly suggest that this query isn't the right place to put
our attention.  There's no reason why we can't improve things further
in the future, and if it turns out that lots of people have problems
with the cost estimates on multi-batch parallel hash joins, then we
can revise the cost model.  We wouldn't treat a single query where a
non-parallel multi-batch hash join run slower than the costing would
suggest as a reason to revise the cost model for that case, and I
don't think this patch should be held to a higher standard.  In this
particular case, you can easily make the problem go away by tuning
configuration parameters, which seems like an acceptable answer for
people who run into this, unless it becomes clear that this particular
problem is widespread and can't be solved without configuration
changes that introduce other issues at the same time.

Keep in mind that, right now, the patch is currently doing just about
the simplest thing possible, and that's working pretty well.  Anything
we change at this point is going to be in the direction of adding more
complexity than what I've got right now and more than we've got in the
corresponding non-parallel case.  That's OK, but I think it's
appropriate that we only do that if we're pretty sure that those
changes are going to be an improvement.  And I think, by and large,
that we don't have enough perspective on this to know that at this
point.  Until this gets some wider testing, which probably isn't going
to happen very much until this gets committed, it's hard to say which
problems are just things we're artificially creating in the lab and
which ones are going to be annoyances in the real world.  Barring
strenuous objections or discovery of more serious problems with this
than have turned up so far, I'm inclined to go ahead and commit it
fairly soon, so that it attracts some more eyeballs while there's
still a little time left in the development cycle to do something
about whatever the systematic problems turn out to be.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to