Re: Unexpected planner choice in simple JOIN

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unexpected planner choice in simple JOIN
Date: 2026-01-08 04:34:24
Message-ID: 1895375.1767846864@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Good suggestion. The results are...interesting:

It's clear that the planner is underestimating the costs of using a
parallel worker in your setup. Try increasing parallel_setup_cost
and/or parallel_tuple_cost to bring things more in line with reality.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2026-01-08 04:44:25 Re: Unexpected planner choice in simple JOIN
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2026-01-08 04:24:02 Re: Unexpected planner choice in simple JOIN