Moin,
On Fri, November 3, 2017 7:13 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
When looking at the web archive, the link is broken, even though in the
mail above it appears correct for me:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/28621.1509750807%40sss.pgh.pa.us
(shortened: http://bit.ly/2zetO5T)
Seems the email-obfuskation breaks such links?
Here is a short-link for people reading it via the archive on http:
http://bit.ly/2hF4lIt
Best regards,
Tels
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
