Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery

2020-11-26 Thread Luc Vlaming
On 27-11-2020 04:14, Greg Nancarrow wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 6:11 PM Luc Vlaming wrote: If interesting I can make a draft of what this would look like if this makes it easier to discuss? Sure, that would help clarify it. Okay. I will try to build an example but this will take a few we

Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery

2020-11-26 Thread Greg Nancarrow
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 6:11 PM Luc Vlaming wrote: > > If interesting I can make a draft of what this would look like if this > makes it easier to discuss? > Sure, that would help clarify it. I did debug this a bit, but it seems my gut feeling was wrong, even though it knows a type coercion is r

Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery

2020-11-25 Thread Luc Vlaming
On 25-11-2020 14:54, Greg Nancarrow wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 6:43 PM Luc Vlaming > wrote: > > > You're completely right, sorry for my error. I was too quick on assuming > my patch would work for this specific case too; I should have tested > that before repl

Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery

2020-11-25 Thread Greg Nancarrow
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 6:43 PM Luc Vlaming wrote: > > > You're completely right, sorry for my error. I was too quick on assuming > my patch would work for this specific case too; I should have tested > that before replying. It looked very similar but turns out to not work > because of the upper r

Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery

2020-11-24 Thread Luc Vlaming
On 24-11-2020 01:44, Greg Nancarrow wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:34 AM Luc Vlaming wrote: Hi, For this problem there is a patch I created, which is registered under https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2787/ that should fix this without any workarounds. Maybe someone can take a look at it

Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery

2020-11-23 Thread Greg Nancarrow
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:34 AM Luc Vlaming wrote: > > Hi, > > For this problem there is a patch I created, which is registered under > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2787/ that should fix this without > any workarounds. Maybe someone can take a look at it? > I tried your patch with the lat

Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery

2020-11-23 Thread Luc Vlaming
*De :* Greg Nancarrow *Envoyé :* lundi 23 novembre 2020 06:04 *À :* Phil Florent *Cc :* pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org *Objet :* Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:51 PM Phil Flore

RE: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery

2020-11-23 Thread Phil Florent
Envoyé : lundi 23 novembre 2020 06:04 À : Phil Florent Cc : pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Objet : Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:51 PM Phil Florent wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I have a question about parallel plans. I also p

Re: Parallel plans and "union all" subquery

2020-11-22 Thread Greg Nancarrow
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:51 PM Phil Florent wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I have a question about parallel plans. I also posted it on the general list > but perhaps it's a question for hackers. Here is my test case : > > > explain > select count(*) > from (select > n1 > from drop_me > union all > valu