Support parallel btree index builds. To make this work, tuplesort.c and logtape.c must also support parallelism, so this patch adds that infrastructure and then applies it to the particular case of parallel btree index builds. Testing to date shows that this can often be 2-3x faster than a serial index build. The model for deciding how many workers to use is fairly primitive at present, but it's better than not having the feature. We can refine it as we get more experience. Peter Geoghegan with some help from Rushabh Lathia. While Heikki Linnakangas is not an author of this patch, he wrote other patches without which this feature would not have been possible, and therefore the release notes should possibly credit him as an author of this feature. Reviewed by Claudio Freire, Heikki Linnakangas, Thomas Munro, Tels, Amit Kapila, me. Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAM3SWZQKM=Pzc=CAHzRixKjp2eO5Q0Jg1SoFQqeXFQ647JiwqQ@mail.gmail.com Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=AxWqDoVvGU7dq856S4r6sJAj6DBn7VMtigkB33N5eyg@mail.gmail.com
On 21st of March, Robert Haas committed patch:
Support parallel aggregation. Parallel workers can now partially aggregate the data and pass the transition values back to the leader, which can combine the partial results to produce the final answer. David Rowley, based on earlier work by Haribabu Kommi. Reviewed by Álvaro Herrera, Tomas Vondra, Amit Kapila, James Sewell, and me.
On 20th of January, Robert Haas committed patch:
The core innovation of this patch is the introduction of the concept of a partial path; that is, a path which if executed in parallel will generate a subset of the output rows in each process. Gathering a partial path produces an ordinary (complete) path. This allows us to generate paths for parallel joins by joining a partial path for one side (which at the baserel level is currently always a Partial Seq Scan) to an ordinary path on the other side. This is subject to various restrictions at present, especially that this strategy seems unlikely to be sensible for merge joins, so only nested loops and hash joins paths are generated. This also allows an Append node to be pushed below a Gather node in the case of a partitioned table. Testing revealed that early versions of this patch made poor decisions in some cases, which turned out to be caused by the fact that the original cost model for Parallel Seq Scan wasn't very good. So this patch tries to make some modest improvements in that area. There is much more to be done in the area of generating good parallel plans in all cases, but this seems like a useful step forward. Patch by me, reviewed by Dilip Kumar and Amit Kapila.
On 11th of November, Robert Haas committed patch:
Generate parallel sequential scan plans in simple cases. Add a new flag, consider_parallel, to each RelOptInfo, indicating whether a plan for that relation could conceivably be run inside of a parallel worker. Right now, we're pretty conservative: for example, it might be possible to defer applying a parallel-restricted qual in a worker, and later do it in the leader, but right now we just don't try to parallelize access to that relation. That's probably the right decision in most cases, anyway. Using the new flag, generate parallel sequential scan plans for plain baserels, meaning that we now have parallel sequential scan in PostgreSQL. The logic here is pretty unsophisticated right now: the costing model probably isn't right in detail, and we can't push joins beneath Gather nodes, so the number of plans that can actually benefit from this is pretty limited right now. Lots more work is needed. Nevertheless, it seems time to enable this functionality so that all this code can actually be tested easily by users and developers. Note that, if you wish to test this functionality, it will be necessary to set max_parallel_degree to a value greater than the default of 0. Once a few more loose ends have been tidied up here, we might want to consider changing the default value of this GUC, but I'm leaving it alone for now. Along the way, fix a bug in cost_gather: the previous coding thought that a Gather node's transfer overhead should be costed on the basis of the relation size rather than the number of tuples that actually need to be passed off to the leader. Patch by me, reviewed in earlier versions by Amit Kapila.