Re: Re: fix cost subqueryscan wrong parallel cost
От | bucoo@sohu.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: fix cost subqueryscan wrong parallel cost |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2022041518062455295013@sohu.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | fix cost subqueryscan wrong parallel cost ("bucoo@sohu.com" <bucoo@sohu.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: fix cost subqueryscan wrong parallel cost
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Generally it should be. But there's no subquery scan visible here.I wrote a patch for distinct/union and aggregate support last year(I want restart it again).If not apply this patch, some parallel paths will naver be selected.> Some debugging work shows that the second path is generated but then
> fails when competing with the first path. So if there is something> wrong, I think cost calculation is the suspicious point.Maybe, I will check it again.> Not related to this topic but I noticed another problem from the plan.
> Note the first Sort node which is to unique-ify the result of the UNION.
> Why cannot we re-arrange the sort keys from (a, b, c) to (a, c, b) so
> that we can avoid the second Sort node?
This is a regress test, just for test Incremental Sort plan.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: