Re: Parallel Aggregate

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)lisasoft(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Aggregate
Date: 2016-03-14 04:20:53
Message-ID: CAKJS1f8zy0jZxKa=T0VAy3Sm1xL=SjwE2VgSqmeOHA9erYf=mQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 14 March 2016 at 17:05, James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)lisasoft(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> I've been playing around with inheritance combined with this patch. Currently it looks like you are taking max(parallel_degree) from all the child tables and using that for the number of workers.
>
> For large machines it makes much more sense to use sum(parallel_degree) - but I've just seen this comment in the code:
>
> /*
> * Decide what parallel degree to request for this append path. For
> * now, we just use the maximum parallel degree of any member. It
> * might be useful to use a higher number if the Append node were
> * smart enough to spread out the workers, but it currently isn't.
> */
>
> Does this mean that even though we are aggregating in parallel, we are only operating on one child table at a time currently?

There is nothing in the planner yet, or any patch that I know of to
push the Partial Aggregate node to below an Append node. That will
most likely come in 9.7.

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2016-03-14 04:45:55 Re: Combining Aggregates
Previous Message James Sewell 2016-03-14 04:18:58 Re: Parallel Aggregate