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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas Munro
Тема Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Дата
Msg-id CAEepm=1KhZg17t6tNpFZ6pr=ucxa-kF24m9cEASU3cj3g_2zgg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> The attached patch fixes both the review comments as discussed above.

This cost stuff looks unstable:

test select_parallel          ... FAILED

!  Gather  (cost=0.00..623882.94 rows=9976 width=8)    Workers Planned: 4
!    ->  Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1  (cost=0.00..623882.94 rows=2494 width=8) (3 rows)
 drop function costly_func(var1 integer);
--- 112,120 ---- explain select ten, costly_func(ten) from tenk1;                                  QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
!  Gather  (cost=0.00..625383.00 rows=10000 width=8)    Workers Planned: 4
!    ->  Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1  (cost=0.00..625383.00 rows=2500 width=8) (3 rows)
 drop function costly_func(var1 integer);

From https://travis-ci.org/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/builds/277376953 .

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Show backtrace when tap tests fail
Следующее
От: Ashwin Agrawal
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] "inconsistent page found" with checksum and wal_consistency_checking enabled