| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
| Date: | 2017-07-23 03:53:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+F0QQUTRd4UoeEz41CQ9GNpMS-8VpvwRUdMX5dd--VCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Setting parallel_workers to 8 changes the threshold for the parallel to even
>> be considered from parellel_tuple_cost <= 0.0049 to <= 0.0076. So it is
>> going in the correct direction, but not by enough to matter.
>>
>
> You might want to play with cpu_tuple_cost and or seq_page_cost.
>
I don't know whether the patch will completely solve your problem, but
this seems to be the right thing to do. Do you think we should stick
this for next CF?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-07-23 06:10:21 | Re: Pluggable storage |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-07-23 02:41:37 | Re: GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays |