Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > I put some consideration and trial on callbacks as a means to > async(early)-execution. Thanks for working on this. >> > Suppose we equip each EState with the ability to fire "callbacks". >> > Callbacks

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Hi. At Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:09:19 +0900, Amit Langote wrote in <56a0ae4f.9000...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > Hi! > > On 2016/01/21 18:26, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > >>> Then, suppose we add a function bool ExecStartAsync(PlanState *target, > >>> ExecCallback callback,

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Hello, I put some consideration and trial on callbacks as a means to async(early)-execution. > > Suppose we equip each EState with the ability to fire "callbacks". > > Callbacks have the signature: > > > > typedef bool (*ExecCallback)(PlanState *planstate, TupleTableSlot > > *slot, void

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Hi! On 2016/01/21 18:26, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >>> Then, suppose we add a function bool ExecStartAsync(PlanState *target, >>> ExecCallback callback, PlanState *cb_planstate, void *cb_context). >>> For non-async-aware plan nodes, this just returns false. async-aware >>> plan nodes should

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Thank you for the comment. At Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:01:27 -0500, Robert Haas wrote in > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > Yes, the most

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Hi Robert and others, First, I currently don't know the postgresql code well enough yet. I still hope my toughts are usefull. Robert Haas wrote: > It is unclear to me how useful this is beyond ForeignScan, Gather, and > Append. MergeAppend's ordering constraint makes it less useful; we > can

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Yes, thats one thing I wanted to know, yet another point which is not > > clear to me about this Async infrastructure is why the current

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Yes, thats one thing I wanted to know, yet another point which is not > clear to me about this Async infrastructure is why the current > infrastructure > of Parallelism can't be used to achieve the Async benefits of

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> But is it important enough to be worthwhile? Maybe, maybe not. I >> think we should be working toward a world where the Gather is at the >> top of the plan tree as often as possible, in which case >> asynchronously

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Yes, the most significant and obvious (but hard to estimate the > benefit) target of async execution is (Merge)Append-ForeignScan, > which is narrow but freuquently used. And this patch has started >

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> But is it important enough to be worthwhile? Maybe, maybe not. I > >> think we should be working toward a world where the Gather is

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Thank you a lot! At Mon, 14 Dec 2015 17:51:41 +0900, Amit Langote wrote in <566e831d.1050...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > > Hi, > > On 2015/12/14 17:34, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > At Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:40:20 -0500, Robert Haas wrote > >> But is it

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Hello, thank you for the comment. At Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:40:20 -0500, Robert Haas wrote in > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > "Asynchronous

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Hi, On 2015/12/14 17:34, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:40:20 -0500, Robert Haas wrote >> But is it important enough to be worthwhile? Maybe, maybe not. I >> think we should be working toward a world where the Gather is at the >> top of the plan tree

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > wrote: > > But is it important enough to be worthwhile? Maybe, maybe not. I > think we should be working toward a world where the

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > "Asynchronous execution" is a feature to start substantial work > of nodes before doing Exec*. This can reduce total startup time > by folding startup time of multiple execution nodes. Especially >

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > Thank you for picking this up. > > At Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:33:02 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote in > > On Mon, Nov

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Thank you for picking this up. At Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:33:02 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote in > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < > horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > == TODO

Re: [HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > > == TODO or random thoughts, not restricted on this patch. > > - This patch doesn't contain planner part, it must be aware of > async execution in order that this can be in effective. > How

[HACKERS] [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)

Hello, the parallel scan became to work. So I'd like to repropose the 'asynchronous execution' or 'early execution'. In previous proposal, I had only foreign scan as workable example, but now I can use the parallel execution instead to make this distinctive from parallel execution itself. I