On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 3:48 AM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:58 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 6:42 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to propose a patch for enabling the parallelism for the
> > > bitmap index scan path.
>
> Workers Planned: 4
> -> Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan on tenk1
> Recheck Cond: (hundred > 1)
> - -> Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_hundred
> + -> Parallel Bitmap Index Scan on tenk1_hundred
> Index Cond: (hundred > 1)
>
> +1, this is a very good feature to have.
>
> + /* Merge bitmap to a common
> shared bitmap */
> + SpinLockAcquire(&pstate->mutex);
> + tbm_merge(tbm,
> &pstate->tbm_shared, &pstate->pt_shared);
> + SpinLockRelease(&pstate->mutex);
>
> This doesn't look like a job for a spinlock.
Yes I agree with that.
You have a barrier so that you can wait until all workers have
> finished merging their partial bitmap into the complete bitmap, which
> makes perfect sense. You also use that spinlock (probably should be
> LWLock) to serialise the bitmap merging work... Hmm, I suppose there
> would be an alternative design which also uses the barrier to
> serialise the merge, and has the merging done entirely by one process,
> like this:
>
> bool chosen_to_merge = false;
>
> /* Attach to the barrier, and see what phase we're up to. */
> switch (BarrierAttach())
> {
> case PBH_BUILDING:
> ... build my partial bitmap in shmem ...
> chosen_to_merge = BarrierArriveAndWait();
> /* Fall through */
>
> case PBH_MERGING:
> if (chosen_to_merge)
> ... perform merge of all partial results into final shmem bitmap ...
> BarrierArriveAndWait();
> /* Fall through */
>
> case PBH_SCANNING:
> /* We attached too late to help build the bitmap. */
> BarrierDetach();
> break;
> }
>
> Just an idea, not sure if it's a good one. I find it a little easier
> to reason about the behaviour of late-attaching workers when the
> phases are explicitly named and handled with code like that (it's not
> immediately clear to me whether your coding handles late attachers
> correctly, which seems to be one of the main problems to think about
> with "dynamic party" parallelism...).
Yeah this seems better idea. I am handling late attachers case but the
idea of using the barrier phase looks quite clean. I will change it this
way.
> --
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
