Re: Observations in Parallel Append

2018-01-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Here's a combined patch with some cosmetic changes which I will commit >> if it looks OK to you. > > Looks good to me. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Re: Observations in Parallel Append

2018-01-03 Thread Amit Kapila
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Attached, please find the patch which fixes this issue (Thanks to >> Dilip for helping me in identifying the above case and fix). I have >> also modified the comment atop function >> choos

Re: Observations in Parallel Append

2018-01-03 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Attached, please find the patch which fixes this issue (Thanks to > Dilip for helping me in identifying the above case and fix). I have > also modified the comment atop function > choose_next_subplan_for_worker() as discussed above. The chang

Re: Observations in Parallel Append

2018-01-02 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> Okay, but is it appropriate to use the parallel_divisor? The >> parallel_divisor means the contribution of all the workers (+ >> leader_contribution) whereas for non-partial paths the

Re: Observations in Parallel Append

2017-12-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >>> Also, don't we need to use parallel_divisor for partial paths instead >>> of non-partial paths as those will be actually distri

Re: Observations in Parallel Append

2017-12-24 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> Also, don't we need to use parallel_divisor for partial paths instead >> of non-partial paths as those will be actually distributed among >> workers? > > Uh, that seems backwards to me.

Re: Observations in Parallel Append

2017-12-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > There doesn't seem to be any need for including spin.h. I think some > prior version of the patch might need it. Patch attached to remove > it. OK, good catch. > The code and comment don't seem to match. The comments indicate that > after