Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca> writes:
>> Whether I get a parallel aggregate seems entirely determined by the number
>> of rows, not the cost of preparing those rows.
> This is true, as far as I can tell and unfortunate. Feeding tables with
> 100ks of rows, I get parallel plans, feeding 10ks of rows, never do, no
> matter how costly the work going on within. That's true of changing costs
> on the subquery select list, and on the aggregate transfn.
This sounds like it might be the same issue being discussed in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMkU=1ycXNipvhWuweUVpKuyu6SpNjF=yHWu4c4US5JgVGxtZQ@mail.gmail.com
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
