Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hubert Lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com
Date: 2017-12-05 18:48:50
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYCqMtjD_421od1CwTBcN=QoDg=V1nPtNVPLcED1XHq+w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> As for how to aggregate the information, isn't it reasonable to show
> data from the last loop on the basis that it's representative?
> Summing wouldn't make too much sense, because you didn't use that much
> memory all at once.

Sorts can be rescanned even without parallel query, so I guess we
should try to make the parallel case kinda like the non-parallel case.
If I'm not wrong, that will just use the stats from the most recent
execution (i.e. the last loop) -- see show_sort_info() in explain.c.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-12-05 18:50:11 Re: Bitmap scan is undercosted? - boolean correlation
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-12-05 18:33:55 Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures