On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Agreed, so I have rebased your patch and passed heap_pages as -1 for
> index_only scans as discussed. Also, Rafia has tested with attached
> patch that parallel index and parallel index only scans are picked for
> TPC-H queries. I have also
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
I think it can give us benefit in
such cases as well (especially when we
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> I think it can give us benefit in
>>> such cases as well (especially when we have to discard rows based heap
>>> rows). Now, consider
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> I think it can give us benefit in
>> such cases as well (especially when we have to discard rows based heap
>> rows). Now, consider it from another viewpoint, what if there are
>> enough
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> If we have lesser index pages and more heap pages, then we limit the
> parallelism based on index pages.
Kinda. In most cases, we figure out the degree of parallelism based
on heap pages and then we figure out the degree of parallelism based
o
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior,
>> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after
>> Parallel Append. I am not sure if this is the rig
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior,
> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after
> Parallel Append. I am not sure if this is the right time to consider
> it or shall we wait till Parallel Ap
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
> wrote:
>>> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior,
>>> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after
>>> Parallel Append. I am not sure if this
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior,
>> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after
>> Parallel Append. I am not sure if this is the right time to consider
>> it or shall we wait till Par
> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior,
> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after
> Parallel Append. I am not sure if this is the right time to consider
> it or shall we wait till Parallel Append is committed.
>
>> I think the problem here is t
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> RCA:
>>>
>>> From "Replace min_parallel_relation_size with two new GUCs" commit
>>> onwards, we are not assigning parallel workers for the child rel with
>>> zero heap pages. This mean
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> RCA:
>>
>> From "Replace min_parallel_relation_size with two new GUCs" commit
>> onwards, we are not assigning parallel workers for the child rel with
>> zero heap pages. This means we won't be able to create a partial
>> append path as th
>
> Right, but OTOH, if we assign parallel workers by default, then it is
> quite possible that it would result in much worse plans. Consider a
> case where partition hierarchy has 1000 partitions and only one of
> them is big enough to allow parallel workers. Now in this case, with
> your propos
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> From following git commit onwards, parallel seq scan is never getting
> selected for inheritance or partitioned tables.
>
>
> commit 51ee6f3160d2e1515ed6197594bda67eb99dc2cc
> Author: Robert Haas
> Date: Wed Feb 15 13:37:24 2
Hi All,
>From following git commit onwards, parallel seq scan is never getting
selected for inheritance or partitioned tables.
commit 51ee6f3160d2e1515ed6197594bda67eb99dc2cc
Author: Robert Haas
Date: Wed Feb 15 13:37:24 2017 -0500
Replace min_parallel_relation_size with two new GUCs.
15 matches
Mail list logo
