Re: Wrong example in the bloom documentation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Wrong example in the bloom documentation
Date
Msg-id 20201026210409.GA4951@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Wrong example in the bloom documentation  ("Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com>)
Responses Re: Wrong example in the bloom documentation
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:50:26PM +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
> On Fri, Oct  9, 2020 at 11:08:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >This is not applying to PG 12 or earlier because the patch mentions JIT,
> >which was only mentioned in the PG bloom docs in PG 13+.
> 
> Does that mean we need separate patches for each release starting with 10? 
> As I am not frequently writing patches, I would need some help here.

I can regenerate the output for older versions using your patch.
However, I am confused about the parallelism you are seeing.  Your patch
shows:

       Without the two indexes being created, a parallel sequential scan will happen for the query below:
                                                -------------------
    <programlisting>
    =# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM tbloom WHERE i2 = 898732 AND i5 = 123451;
                                                QUERY PLAN
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Seq Scan on tbloom  (cost=0.00..214.00 rows=1 width=24) (actual time=2.729..2.731 rows=0 loops=1)
       Filter: ((i2 = 898732) AND (i5 = 123451))
       Rows Removed by Filter: 10000
     Planning Time: 0.257 ms
     Execution Time: 2.764 ms
    (5 rows)

However, I don't see any parallelism in this output.  Also, I don't see
any parallelism once the indexes are created.  What PG version is this?
and what config settings did you use?  Thanks.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Date:
Subject: Re: Commitfest 2020-11
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits