Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKG+73k-EnwPep7+oKYcR+kh63Deq7eFTmXHkgAfaqCoE6w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN  (Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 5:24 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:30 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Of course there are some more things that could be reported in a
>> similar way eventually, such as filter counters and hash join details.
>
> This made me think about other explain wishlist items.
> For parallel hashjoin, I would find it useful to know which batches
> each worker participated in (maybe just probing to start with, but
> loading would be great too).
>
> I'm not sure anyone else (especially users) would care about this,
> though.

Yeah, I think that'd be interesting.  At some point in the patch set
when I was working on the batch load balancing strategy I showed the
number of tuples hashed and number of batches probed by each process
(not the actual batch numbers, since that seems a bit over the top):

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D0th8Le2SDCv32zN7tMyCJYR9oGYJ52fXNYJz1hrpGW%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com

I guess I thought of that as a debugging feature and took it out
because it was too verbose, but maybe it just needs to be controlled
by the VERBOSE switch.  Do you think we should put that back?



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Consolidate 'unique array values' logic into a reusable function?
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN