Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Arnaud L.
Тема
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade
Дата
Msg-id
3ba3bd1d-161a-3ef1-f04f-03a9664e7b9c@codata.eu
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade "Arnaud L." <arnaud.listes@codata.eu>
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade "Arnaud L." <arnaud.listes@codata.eu>
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade "Arnaud L." <arnaud.listes@codata.eu>
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade "Arnaud L." <arnaud.listes@codata.eu>
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade "Arnaud L." <arnaud.listes@codata.eu>
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca>
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade "Arnaud L." <arnaud.listes@codata.eu>
Bad estimates on GIN bigint[] index "Arnaud L." <arnaud.listes@codata.eu>
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade Imre Samu <pella.samu@gmail.com>
Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade "Arnaud L." <arnaud.listes@codata.eu>
Le 03/09/2019 à 16:39, Paul Ramsey a écrit :
>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:06 AM, Arnaud L.  wrote:
>> I've setup parallel_tuple_cost to 1.0 parallel_setup_cost to 5000.0 for the time being which solves this specific problem. These value don't look very sensible though, they are very high compared to the default ones.
> 
> You can also leave that setting unchanged and just change the behaviour on your one table:
> 
> ALTER TABLE nodes SET ( parallel_workers = 0);

Nice, this will fix this precise query and leave parallelism in place 
for the other ones. Thanks !

--
Arnaud


В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления
От: Imre Samu
Дата:
От: Arnaud L.
Дата:
FAQ