Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Kuzmenkov
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node
Date
Msg-id eb17a29f-0a1b-a2ee-bf86-548b37945e5d@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node  (Rafia Sabih <rafia.sabih@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Rafia,

I like the idea of reducing locking overhead by sending tuples in bulk. 
The implementation could probably be simpler: you could extend the API 
of shm_mq to decouple notifying the sender from actually putting data 
into the queue (i.e., make shm_mq_notify_receiver public and make a 
variant of shm_mq_sendv that doesn't send the notification). From Amit's 
letter I understand that you have already tried something along these 
lines and the performance wasn't good. What was the bottleneck then? If 
it's the locking around mq_bytes_read/written, it can be rewritten with 
atomics. I think it would be great to try this approach because it 
doesn't add much code, doesn't add any additional copying and improves 
shm_mq performance in general.

-- 
Alexander Kuzmenkov
Postgres Professional:http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company



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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix assorted portability issues in newpgbench TAP tests.
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables