| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Erikjan Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Himanshu Upadhyaya <upadhyaya(dot)himanshu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE |
| Date: | 2022-04-06 16:59:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20220406165930.675nhhmudfehrfh6@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-04-06 11:50:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It does work, but Tom prefers not to have the test at all, so I'll just
> rip it out.
If I understand correctly the reason a large table is needed is to test
parallelism, right? Wouldn't the better fix be to just tweak the parallelism
settings for that table? See select_parallel.sql:
-- encourage use of parallel plans
set parallel_setup_cost=0;
set parallel_tuple_cost=0;
set min_parallel_table_scan_size=0;
set max_parallel_workers_per_gather=4;
might be worth also setting
set parallel_leader_participation = off;
to avoid the leader processing everything before workers have even started up.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-04-06 17:05:12 | Re: psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option - pg_regress output |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-04-06 16:55:49 | Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_toast |