Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL
Date: 2018-03-13 04:35:54
Message-ID: CAFjFpRcvSdUpK9jcbf+F-wO2Km4h7h_57BfSvkGZXJSdDNzNKA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> 0003
>> Probably we want to rename generate_union_path() as generate_union_rel() or
>> generate_union_paths() since the function doesn't return a path anymore.
>> Similarly for generate_nonunion_path().
>
> Good point. Changed.

It looks like it was not changed in all the places. make falied. I
have fixed all the instances of these two functions in the attached
patchset (only 0003 changes). Please check.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Let-Parallel-Append-over-simple-UNION-ALL-have-parti.patch text/x-patch 9.2 KB
0002-Rewrite-recurse_union_children-to-iterate-rather-tha.patch text/x-patch 5.7 KB
0003-Generate-a-separate-upper-relation-for-each-stage-of.patch text/x-patch 21.3 KB
0004-Consider-Parallel-Append-as-a-way-to-implement-a-uni.patch text/x-patch 5.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2018-03-13 05:03:45 Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Previous Message Charles Cui 2018-03-13 04:29:15 Re: GSOC 2018 proposal