Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Gather Merge
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@xxxxxxxxx>
>> PFA latest patch with fix as well as few cosmetic changes.
> Moved to next CF with "needs review" status.
I spent quite a bit of time on this patch over the last couple of
days. I was hoping to commit it, but I think it's not quite ready for
that yet and I hit a few other issues along the way. Meanwhile,
here's an updated version with the following changes:
* Adjusted cost_gather_merge because we don't need to worry about less
than 1 worker.
* Don't charge double maintenance cost of the heap per 34ca0905. This
was pointed out previous and Rushabh said it was fixed, but it wasn't
fixed in v5.
* cost_gather_merge claimed to charge a slightly higher IPC cost
because we have to block, but didn't. Fix it so it does.
* Move several hunks to more appropriate places in the file, near
related code or in a more logical position relative to surrounding
* Fixed copyright dates for the new files. One said 2015, one said 2016.
* Removed unnecessary code from create_gather_merge_plan that tried to
handle an empty list of pathkeys (shouldn't happen).
* Make create_gather_merge_plan more consistent with
create_merge_append_plan. Remove make_gather_merge for the same
* Changed generate_gather_paths to generate gather merge paths. In
the previous coding, only the upper planner nodes ever tried to
generate gather merge nodes, but that seems unnecessarily limiting,
since it could be useful to generate a gathered path with pathkeys at
any point in the tree where we'd generate a gathered path with no
* Rewrote generate_ordered_paths() logic to consider only the one
potentially-useful path not now covered by the new code in
* Reverted changes in generate_distinct_paths(). I think we should
add something here but the existing logic definitely isn't right
considering the change to generate_gather_paths().
* Assorted cosmetic cleanup in nodeGatherMerge.c.
* Documented the new GUC enable_gathermerge.
* Improved comments. Dropped one that seemed unnecessary.
* Fixed parts of the patch to be more pgindent-clean.
Testing this against the TPC-H queries at 10GB with
max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 4, seq_page_cost = 0.1,
random_page_cost = 0.1, work_mem = 64MB initially produced somewhat
demoralizing results. Only Q17, Q4, and Q8 picked Gather Merge, and
of those only Q17 got faster. Investigating this led to me realizing
that join costing for parallel joins is all messed up: see
With that patch applied, in my testing, Gather Merge got picked for
Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q10, and Q17, but a lot of those queries get a
little slower instead of a little faster. Here are the timings --
these are with EXPLAIN ANALYZE, so take them with a grain of salt --
first number is without Gather Merge, second is with Gather Merge:
Q3 16943.938 ms -> 18645.957 ms
Q4 3155.350 ms -> 4179.431 ms
Q5 13611.484 ms -> 13831.946 ms
Q6 9264.942 ms -> 8734.899 ms
Q7 9759.026 ms -> 10007.307 ms
Q8 2473.899 ms -> 2459.225 ms
Q10 13814.950 ms -> 12255.618 ms
Q17 49552.298 ms -> 46633.632 ms
I haven't really had time to dig into these results yet, so I'm not
sure how "real" these numbers are and how much is run-to-run jitter,
EXPLAIN ANALYZE distortion, or whatever. I think this overall concept
is good, because there should be cases where it's substantially
cheaper to preserve the order while gathering tuples from workers than
to re-sort afterwards. But this particular set of results is a bit
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription: