Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Kapila
Тема Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Дата
Msg-id CAA4eK1KUYk8XbYwnK3CE9VAm_w_oJmX-x-3+_FPrRV0BQYhr7g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Either we can pass "num_gene" to merge_clump or we can store num_gene
>> in the root. And inside merge_clump we can check. Do you see some more
>> complexity?
>>

I think something like that should work.

> After putting some more thought I see one more problem but not sure
> whether we can solve it easily. Now, if we skip generating the gather
> path at top level node then our cost comparison while adding the
> element to pool will not be correct as we are skipping some of the
> paths (gather path).  And, it's very much possible that the path1 is
> cheaper than path2 without adding gather on top of it but with gather,
> path2 can be cheaper.
>

I think that should not matter because the costing of gather is mainly
based on a number of rows and that should be same for both path1 and
path2 in this case.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
Следующее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II