On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 23:35, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Another point I am thinking is that whatever formula we come up here > might not be a good fit for every case. For ex. as you mentioned > above that larger step-size can impact the performance based on > qualification, similarly there could be other things like having a > target list or qual having some function which takes more time for > certain tuples and lesser for others especially if function evaluation > is based on some column values. So, can we think of providing a > rel_option for step-size?
I think someone at some point is not going to like the automatic choice. So perhaps a reloption to allow users to overwrite it is a good idea. -1 should most likely mean use the automatic choice based on relation size. I think for parallel seq scans that filter a large portion of the records most likely need some sort of index, but there are perhaps some genuine cases for not having one. e.g perhaps the query is just not run often enough for an index to be worthwhile. In that case, the performance is likely less critical, but at least the reloption would allow users to get the old behaviour. David
