Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David Rowley
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath
Дата
Msg-id CAKJS1f_zbhQ=fFGqZPHXv0Eyga7fpmOzQKd3xsy4UHnhknnU6g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 26 October 2017 at 23:30, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:59 PM, David Rowley
> <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> As of today, because we include this needless [Merge]Append node, we
>> cannot parallelise scans below the Append.
>
> Without disputing your general notion that singe-child Append or
> MergeAppend nodes are a pointless waste, how does a such a needless
> node prevent parallelizing scans beneath it?

hmm, I think I was wrong about that now. I had been looking over the
regression test diffs after having made tenk1 a partitioned table with
a single partition containing all the rows, but it looks like I read
the diff backwards. The planner actually parallelized the Append
version, not the non-Append version, like I had previously thought.

-- David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
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: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] How to determine that a TransactionId is really aborted?
Следующее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning