On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Rafia Sabih
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
>> <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Also, looking at the patch, it doesn't look like it take enough care
>>> to build execution state of new worker so that it can participate in a
>>> running query. I may be wrong, but the execution state initialization
>>> routines are written with the assumption that all the workers start
>> No such assumptions, workers started later can also join the execution
>> of the query.
> If we are talking of run-time allocation of workers I'd like to
> propose an idea to safeguard parallelism from selectivity-estimation
> errors. Start each query (if it qualifies for the use of parallelism)
> with a minimum number of workers (say 2) irrespective of the #planned
> workers. Then as query proceeds and we find that there is more work to
> do, we allocate more workers.
> Let's get to the details a little, we'll have following new variables,
> - T_int - a time interval at which we'll periodically check if the
> query requires more workers,
> - work_remaining - a variable which estimates the work yet to do. This
> will use the selectivity estimates to find the total work done and the
> remaining work accordingly. Once, the actual number of rows crosses
> the estimated number of rows, take maximum possible tuples for that
> operator as the new estimate.
> Now, we'll check at gather, after each T_int if the work is remaining
> and allocate another 2 (say) workers. This way we'll keep on adding
> the workers in small chunks and not in one go. Thus, saving resources
> in case over-estimation is done.
I understand your concern about selectivity estimation error which
affects the number of workers planned as well. But, in that case, I
would like to fix the optimizer so that it calculates the number of
workers correctly. If the optimizer thinks that we should start with n
number of workers, probably we SHOULD start with n number of workers.
However, error in selectivity estimation(The root of all evil, the
Achilles Heel of query optimization, according to Guy Lohman et al.
:)) can always prove the optimizer wrong. In that case, +1 for your
suggested approach of dynamically add or kill some workers based on
the estimated work left to do.
Thanks & Regards,
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: