On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 8:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 7:37 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> >
> > I captured below information with the attached patch
> > 0001-test-times-and-block-counts.patch applied on top of CTAS v23
> > patch set. Testing details are attached in the file named "test".
> > Total time spent in LockRelationForExtension
> > Total time spent in GetPageWithFreeSpace
> > Total time spent in RelationAddExtraBlocks
> > Total number of times extended the relation in bulk
> > Total number of times extended the relation by one block
> > Total number of blocks added in bulk extension
> > Total number of times getting the page from FSM
> >
>
> In your results, the number of pages each process is getting from FSM
> is not matching with the number of blocks added. I think we need to
> increment 'fsm_hit_count' in RecordAndGetPageWithFreeSpace as well
> because that is also called and the process can get a free page via
> the same. The other thing to check via debugger is when one worker
> adds the blocks in bulk does another parallel worker gets all those
> blocks. You can achieve that by allowing one worker (say worker-1) to
> extend the relation in bulk and then let it wait and allow another
> worker (say worker-2) to proceed and see if it gets all the pages
> added by worker-1 from FSM. You need to keep the leader also waiting
> or not perform any operation.
>
While looking at results, I have observed one more thing that we are
trying to parallelize I/O due to which we might not be seeing benefit
in such cases. I think even for non-write queries there won't be any
(much) benefit if we can't parallelize CPU usage. Basically, the test
you are doing is for statement: explain analyze verbose create table
test as select * from tenk1;. Now, in this statement, there is no
qualification and still, the Gather node is generated for it, this
won't be the case if we check "select * from tenk1". Is it due to the
reason that the patch completely ignores the parallel_tuple_cost? But
still, it should prefer a serial plan due parallel_setup_cost, why is
that not happening? Anyway, I think we should not parallelize such
queries where we can't parallelize CPU usage. Have you tried the cases
without changing any of the costings for parallelism?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.