Re: Parallel Seq Scan

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Date: 2015-11-12 00:54:40
Message-ID: 5643E350.1050107@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015/11/12 4:26, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I have a first query
>>
>> I looked on EXPLAIN ANALYZE output and the numbers of filtered rows are
>> differen
>
> Hmm, I see I was right about people finding more bugs once this was
> committed. That didn't take long.

I encountered one more odd behavior:

postgres=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT abalance FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE aid
= 23466;
QUERY PLAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gather (cost=1000.00..65207.88 rows=1 width=4) (actual
time=17450.595..17451.151 rows=1 loops=1)
Number of Workers: 4
-> Parallel Seq Scan on pgbench_accounts (cost=0.00..64207.78 rows=1
width=4) (actual time=55.934..157001.134 rows=2 loops=1)
Filter: (aid = 23466)
Rows Removed by Filter: 18047484
Planning time: 0.198 ms
Execution time: 17453.565 ms
(7 rows)

The #rows removed here is almost twice the number of rows in the table
(10m). Also, the #rows selected shown is 2 for Parallel Seq Scan whereas
only 1 row is selected.

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Flower 2015-11-12 01:09:57 Re: can we add SKIP LOCKED to UPDATE?
Previous Message Greg Stark 2015-11-12 00:52:31 Re: can we add SKIP LOCKED to UPDATE?