Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iSTGT-0001z2-Du for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 21:54:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iSTGS-000680-5n for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 21:54:56 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iSTGR-00067n-Nm for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 21:54:55 +0000 Received: from mail-wm1-x342.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::342]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iSTGN-0000sA-Kk for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 21:54:55 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-x342.google.com with SMTP id t26so5474840wmi.4 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:54:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=2ndquadrant-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=hgUfpFaYq25vzATximKMTBM2eCyAR88LfQpTCiuyw80=; b=NSrYjdQ6EUdmVqa6JzHGqmD/FEQP0dsFnXnk3tZHPeFPBAnvK7sCsysdHX6xBaCbe3 o2l1eH9V662PkPFSmg+0T8EI9DFE0ZnjnyEu9kc61eVKNQplbPzW2mxvxhI/LFlF3zLL IIlJ4UEu4n/2+nPDNwGab9UJgG9wkWGMR2SpGjkyKmhX6Sc2AHevggZ1c9X7bCGmUM88 FmpYr+36b44SIEbRGtiJSbi3SQnbWPFVnVAgMCTI0ItxOzEvqKE6QA4ixfg0UHwSyYE7 dylGrvYz0U79yIY+BVosOcQyCFItPOomm6hkfIx6YfYfsMtP4z0hCj0mWAxBcds20SpB HCWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=hgUfpFaYq25vzATximKMTBM2eCyAR88LfQpTCiuyw80=; b=RgLAolVSEWqO0JVGBnRo7a0KGoGLDFuEbjANDWMfxuAJA2Of10krm2npJTF38Gc1z5 +QowPf9JG6+cRXLLHb3USBnLB0ym/Ss+NtXQYXsQ6+9fSBmdOs2UP/BDSHu9C6oiSJO6 CFhp4tSpxIjP14enMElZ9mnKR6qsBchZGELt5TmjMZztQvuvrLparMRkrVDGDOIjggsA E+BqzGnagfyQUm7CVDtfR+MO82eJQsRg7BRHJGfZMJY0SMuBDnTfMVrvkSReQg6cfaif +qeF9JDlakoCCtoRuIdmuPsUy4QkybhYluqWyd8OonG793QmRXcMZsipc0Ua12un3CvH YoGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVI8FSEstOayHKqijyBLk19stDeAtuZV4v3sUnriNNrSG4163BZ tK/jX6Ihq6d36/SNAcQzkRwTVqYXKj0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqysLbgwIm2iPiFiUV9r2KONfFv2dpv/swD2JAUoKcSy+TP16nOyIOAiXUOL9l2zv3HYfajcKA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:20c9:: with SMTP id y9mr4332642wmm.72.1573077290455; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ip-86-49-253-183.net.upcbroadband.cz. [86.49.253.183]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p12sm12812wrm.62.2019.11.06.13.54.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 06 Nov 2019 13:54:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 22:54:48 +0100 From: Tomas Vondra To: AJG Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: FPGA optimization ... Message-ID: <20191106215448.dhjqeq2ihfkpxnbg@development> References: <20191105001915.w7js3knyfvlznu6m@development> <45be5a6f-aff0-9fd3-1f36-538eb06fdeee@gusw.net> <1573063297493-0.post@n3.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1573063297493-0.post@n3.nabble.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 11:01:37AM -0700, AJG wrote: From what I have read and benchmarks seen.. > >FPGA shines for writes (and up to 3x (as opposed to 10x claim) real world >for queries from memory) > >GPU shines/outperforms FPGA for reads. There is a very recent and >interesting academic paper[1] on High Performance GPU B-Tree (vs lsm) and >the incredible performance it gets, but I 'think' it requires NVIDIA (so no >easy/super epyc+gpu+hbm on-chip combo solution then ;) ). > >Doesn't both FPHGA and GPU going to require changes to executor from pull to >push to get real benefits from them? Isnt that something Andres working on >(pull to push)? > I think it very much depends on how the FPA/GPU/... is used. If we're only talking about FPGA I/O acceleration, essentially FPGA between the database and storage, it's likely possible to get that working without any extensive executor changes. Essentially create an FPGA-aware variant of SeqScan and you're done. Or an FPGA-aware tuplesort, or something like that. Neither of this should require significant planner/executor changes, except for costing. >What really is exciting is UPMEM (little 500mhz processors on the memory), >cost will be little more than memory cost itself, and shows up to 20x >performance improvement on things like index search (from memory). C >library, claim only needs few hundred lines of code to integrate from >memory, but not clear to me what use cases it can also be used for than ones >they show benchmarks for. > Interesting, and perhaps interesting for in-memory databases. > >[1] https://escholarship.org/content/qt1ph2x5td/qt1ph2x5td.pdf?t=pkvkdm -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services