Re: Choosing parallel_degree

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)lisasoft(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Choosing parallel_degree
Date: 2016-03-16 16:55:51
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoax8-wFg0OWWvL3-ge956rARzuMZzN1Vj-++DiqAwDySw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Julien Rouhaud
<julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> Something like a "min_parallel_degree" then ?

Why not just parallel_degree without any prefix? As in, when scanning
this table in parallel, the reloption suggests using N workers.

--
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 2016-03-16 16:57:48 Re: Pushdown target list below gather node (WAS Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification)
Previous Message Joe Conway 2016-03-16 16:54:40 Re: plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types