| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Brad DeJong <Brad(dot)Dejong(at)infor(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Small improvement to parallel query docs |
| Date: | 2017-02-14 10:17:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f996yyrj889VT7PDmRZK1z34zZiQJae0=a34OG3J9fntA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 February 2017 at 21:25, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> + Aggregate</> stage. For such cases there is clearly going to be no
> + performance benefit to using parallel aggregation.
>
> A comma is required after "For such cases"
Added
>> The query planner takes
>> + this into account during the planning process and will choose how to
>> + perform the aggregation accordingly.
>
> This part of the sentence sounds unclear. It doesn't clearly
> indicate that planner won't choose a parallel plan in such cases.
I thought that was obvious enough giving that I'd just mentioned that
there's clearly no benefit, however I've changed things to make that a
bit more explicit.
Thanks for reviewing this.
Updated patch attached.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| parallel_doc_fixes_v4.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-02-14 10:22:57 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2017-02-14 09:59:25 | Sync message |