On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:23 PM, David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 5 May 2017 at 13:37, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2017-05-02 15:13:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Multiple people (including David Rowley >>> as well as folks here at EnterpriseDB) have demonstrated that for >>> certain queries, we can actually use a lot more workers and everything >>> works great. The problem is that for other queries, using a lot of >>> workers works terribly. The planner doesn't know how to figure out >>> which it'll be - and honestly, I don't either. >> >> Have those benchmarks, even in a very informal form, been shared / >> collected / referenced centrally? I'd be very interested to know where >> the different contention points are. Possibilities: > > I posted mine on , although the post does not go into much detail > about the contention points. I only really briefly mention it at the > end.
Just for fun, check out pages 42 and 43 of Wei Hong's thesis. He worked on Berkeley POSTGRES parallel query and a spin-off called XPRS, and they got linear seq scan scaling up to number of spindles: http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/ERL-M93-28.pdf It gather from flicking through the POSTGRES 4.2 sources and this stuff about XPRS that they switched from a "launch N workers!" model to a "generate tasks and schedule them" model somewhere between these systems. Chapters 2 and 3 cover the problem of avoiding excessive parallelism that reduces performance adjusting dynamically to maximum throughput. I suspect we're going that way too at some point, and it would certainly fix some problems I ran into with Parallel Shared Hash. XPRS's cost model included resource consumption, not just 'timerons'. This is something I grappled with when trying to put a price tag on Parallel Shared Hash plans where just one worker builds the hash table while the others wait. I removed that plan from the patch because it became mostly redundant, but when it was there Postgres thought it was the same cost as a plan where every worker hammers your system building the same hash table, whereas XPRS would have considered such a plan ludicrously expensive (depending on his 'w' term, see page 28, which determines whether you care more about resource usage or response time). -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers