From: | Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Queries and PostGIS |
Date: | 2016-03-29 19:51:20 |
Message-ID: | CACowWR0NQijD=WcVPZDney3T9qiac6vRX4Ke-qJW8sM8c6poYA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> wrote:
>> On the join case, I wonder if it's possible that _st_intersects is not
>> marked parallel-safe? If that's not the problem, I don't have a
>> second guess, but the thing to do would be to figure out whether
>> consider_parallel is false for the RelOptInfo corresponding to either
>> of pd and pts, or whether it's true for both but false for the
>> joinrel's RelOptInfo, or whether it's true for all three of them but
>> you don't get the desired path anyway.
>
> _st_intersects is definitely marked parallel safe, and in fact will
> generate a parallel plan if used alone (without the operator though,
> it's impossibly slow). It's the && operator that is the issue... and I
> just noticed that the PROCEDURE bound to the && operator
> (geometry_overlaps) is *not* marked parallel safe: could be the
> problem?
Asked and answered: marking the geometry_overlaps as parallel safe
gets me a parallel plan! Now to play with costs and see how it behaves
when force_parallel_mode is not set.
P.
>
> Thanks,
>
> P
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2016-03-29 19:52:47 | Re: raw output from copy |
Previous Message | Paul Ramsey | 2016-03-29 19:48:41 | Re: Parallel Queries and PostGIS |