| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marc Millas <marc(dot)millas(at)mokadb(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: explain |
| Date: | 2025-04-25 06:02:02 |
| Message-ID: | fe82d806915911d823f22bccd20cd174d27a60aa.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2025-04-25 at 12:36 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 at 03:06, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2025-04-25 at 01:41 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > > The 79.3 seconds is the total time spent doing reads for all parallel
> > > workers. 52.6 seconds is the wall clock time elapsed to execute the
> > > query.
> >
> > But wouldn't it read "loops=3" or similar then?
>
> Only if the Nested Loop was below the Gather / Gather Merge node.
Ah, I see. The I/O time accrued in a different, lower, parallelized step
of the execution plan.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vydehi Ganti | 2025-04-25 07:08:47 | Clarification on RLS policy |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-04-25 00:36:11 | Re: explain |