Hans Buschmann writes:
> In my opinion, even for Linux the default for parallel_setup_cost is set too
> low (1000). It should reflect the sequential access of 1000 pages, which
> normally is faster from buffer cache on modern hardware.
I tend to agree with you that the default costs for paralle
Thank you Thomas for pointing me to this GUC which I haven't realized before.
>From the documentation I take that a cost of 1.0 is set for a sequential page
>fetch.
In my opinion, even for Linux the default for parallel_setup_cost is set too
low (1000). It should reflect the sequential access o
>No Windows here, but could it be super slow at launching workers? How
>does a trivial parallel query compare, something like?
>SET force_parallel_mode = on;
>EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT 42;
indeed this query takes about 40ms in windows and 7ms on Linux (lowest values).
Due to remoting the machine
