>> 5. Comment for _bt_parallel_seize() says:
>> "False indicates that we have reached the end of scan for
>> current scankeys and for that we return block number as P_NONE."
>>
>> What is the reason to check (blkno == P_NONE) after checking (status ==
false)
>> in _bt_first() (see code below)? If comment is correct
>> we'll never reach _bt_parallel_done()
>>
>> + blkno = _bt_parallel_seize(scan, &status);
>> + if (status == false)
>> + {
>> + BTScanPosInvalidate(so->currPos);
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> + else if (blkno == P_NONE)
>> + {
>> + _bt_parallel_done(scan);
>> + BTScanPosInvalidate(so->currPos);
>> + return false;
>> + }
>>
>The first time master backend or worker hits last page (calls this
>API), it will return P_NONE and after that any worker tries to fetch
>next page, it will return status as false. I think we can expand a
>comment to explain it clearly. Let me know, if you need more
>clarification, I can explain it in detail.
Probably this was confusing because we have not mentioned
that P_NONE can be returned even when status = TRUE and
not just when status is false.
I think, the comment above the function can be modified as follows,
+ /*
+ * True indicates that the block number returned is either valid including
P_NONE
+ * and scan is continued or block number is invalid and scan has just
+ * begun.
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova
> <lubennikov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> > make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> > Implements feature: tested, passed
> > Spec compliant: tested, passed
> > Documentation: tested, passed
> >
> > Hi, thank you for the patch.
> > Results are very promising. Do you see any drawbacks of this feature or
> something that requires more testing?
> >
>
> I think you can focus on the handling of array scan keys for testing.
> In general, one of my colleagues has shown interest in testing this
> patch and I think he has tested as well but never posted his findings.
> I will request him to share his findings and what kind of tests he has
> done, if any.
>
> > I'm willing to oo a review.
>
> Thanks, that will be helpful.
>
>
> > I saw the discussion about parameters in the thread above. And I agree
> that we'd better concentrate
> > on the patch itself and add them later if necessary.
> >
> > 1. Can't we simply use "if (scan->parallel_scan != NULL)" instead of
> xs_temp_snap flag?
> >
> > + if (scan->xs_temp_snap)
> > + UnregisterSnapshot(scan->xs_snapshot);
> >
>
> I agree with what Rober has told in his reply. We do same way for
> heap, refer heap_endscan().
>
> > I must say that I'm quite new with all this parallel stuff. If you give
> me a link,
> > where to read about snapshots for parallel workers, my review will be
> more helpful.
> >
>
> You can read transam/README.parallel. Refer "State Sharing" portion
> of README to learn more about it.
>
> > Anyway, it would be great to have more comments about it in the code.
> >
>
> We are sharing snapshot to ensure that reads in both master backend
> and worker backend can use the same snapshot. There is no harm in
> adding comments, but I think it is better to be consistent with
> similar heapam code. After reading README.parallel, if you still feel
> that we should add more comments in the code, then we can definitely
> do that.
>
> > 2. Don't you mind to rename 'amestimateparallelscan' to let's say
> 'amparallelscan_spacerequired'
> > or something like this?
>
> Sure, I am open to other names, but IMHO, lets keep "estimate" in the
> name to keep it consistent with other parallel stuff. Refer
> execParallel.c to see how widely this word is used.
>
> > As far as I understand there is nothing to estimate, we know this size
> > for sure. I guess that you've chosen this name because of
> 'heap_parallelscan_estimate'.
> > But now it looks similar to 'amestimate' which refers to indexscan cost
> for optimizer.
> > That leads to the next question.
> >
>
> Do you mean 'amcostestimate'? If you want we can rename it
> amparallelscanestimate to be consistent with amcostestimate.
>
> > 3. Are there any changes in cost estimation?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> > I didn't find related changes in the patch.
> > Parallel scan is expected to be faster and optimizer definitely should
> know that.
> >
>
> You can find the relavant changes in
> parallel_index_opt_exec_support_v2.patch, refer cost_index().
>
> > 4. + uint8 ps_pageStatus; /* state of scan, see below */
> > There is no desciption below. I'd make the comment more helpful:
> > /* state of scan. See possible flags values in nbtree.h */
>
> makes sense. Will change.
>
> > And why do you call it pageStatus? What does it have to do with page?
> >
>
> During scan this tells us whether next page is available for scan.
> Another option could be to name it as scanStatus, but not sure if that
> is better. Do you think if we add a comment like "indicates whether
> next page is available for scan" for this variable then it will be
> clear?
>
> > 5. Comment for _bt_parallel_seize() says:
> > "False indicates that we have reached the end of scan for
> > current scankeys and for that we return block number as P_NONE."
> >
> > What is the reason to check (blkno == P_NONE) after checking (status ==
> false)
> > in _bt_first() (see code below)? If comment is correct
> > we'll never reach _bt_parallel_done()
> >
> > + blkno = _bt_parallel_seize(scan, &status);
> > + if (status == false)
> > + {
> > + BTScanPosInvalidate(so->currPos);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > + else if (blkno == P_NONE)
> > + {
> > + _bt_parallel_done(scan);
> > + BTScanPosInvalidate(so->currPos);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> >
>
> The first time master backend or worker hits last page (calls this
> API), it will return P_NONE and after that any worker tries to fetch
> next page, it will return status as false. I think we can expand a
> comment to explain it clearly. Let me know, if you need more
> clarification, I can explain it in detail.
>
> > 6. To avoid code duplication, I would wrap this into the function
> >
> > + /* initialize moreLeft/moreRight appropriately for scan
> direction */
> > + if (ScanDirectionIsForward(dir))
> > + {
> > + so->currPos.moreLeft = false;
> > + so->currPos.moreRight = true;
> > + }
> > + else
> > + {
> > + so->currPos.moreLeft = true;
> > + so->currPos.moreRight = false;
> > + }
> > + so->numKilled = 0; /* just paranoia */
> > + so->markItemIndex = -1; /* ditto */
> >
>
> Okay, I think we can write a separate function (probably inline
> function) for above.
>
> > And after that we can also get rid of _bt_parallel_readpage() which only
> > bring another level of indirection to the code.
> >
>
> See, this function is responsible for multiple actions like
> initializing moreLeft/moreRight positions, reading next page, dropping
> the lock/pin. So replicating all these actions in the caller will
> make the code in caller less readable as compared to now. Consider
> this point and let me know your view on same.
>
> > 7. Just a couple of typos I've noticed:
> >
> > * Below flags are used indicate the state of parallel scan.
> > * Below flags are used TO indicate the state of parallel scan.
> >
> > * On success, release lock and pin on buffer on success.
> > * On success release lock and pin on buffer.
> >
>
> Will fix.
>
> > 8. I didn't find a description of the feature in documentation.
> > Probably we need to add a paragraph to the "Parallel Query" chapter.
> >
>
> Yes, I am aware of that and I think it makes sense to add it now
> rather than waiting until the end.
>
> > I will send another review of performance until the end of the week.
> >
>
> Okay, you can refer Rafia's mail above for non-default settings she
> has used in her performance tests with TPC-H.
>
>
> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
