Re: Problem about postponing gathering partial paths for topmost scan/join rel

From: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Problem about postponing gathering partial paths for topmost scan/join rel
Date: 2022-07-18 12:36:21
Message-ID: 19611.1658147781@antos.home
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 5:00 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 4:03 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 10:02 PM Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> I'd prefer a test that demonstrates that the Gather node at the top of the
> "subproblem plan" is useful purely from the *cost* perspective, rather than
> due to executor limitation.
>
> This patch provides an additional path (Gather atop of subproblem) which
> was not available before. But your concern makes sense that we need to
> show this new path is valuable from competing on cost with other paths.
>
> How about we change to Nested Loop at the topmost? Something like:
>
> Maybe a better example is that we use a small table 'c' to avoid the
> Gather node above scanning 'c', so that the path of parallel nestloop is
> possible to be generated.
>
> Update the patch with the new test case.

ok, this makes sense to me. Just one minor suggestion: the command

alter table d_star reset (parallel_workers);

is not necessary because it's immediately followed by

rollback;

I'm going to set the CF entry to "ready for committer'".

--
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2022-07-18 13:05:51 Re: Commitfest Update
Previous Message Aleksander Alekseev 2022-07-18 12:26:47 Re: [PATCH] Compression dictionaries for JSONB