Re: Parallel Seq Scan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+7ZCKxcUh24GZ7fSWR6r=Fbfit2SXxYkX3xiR7q0nvwA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Seq Scan  (Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>
> On 13 November 2015 at 15:22, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There will be hardly any difference in nodes for each worker and it could
> > be very long plan for large number of workers.  What kind of additional
> > information you want which can't be shown in current format.
>
> For explain plans, not that useful, but it's useful to see how long
> each worker took for explain analyse.
>

The statistics related to buffers, timing and infact rows filtered will be
different for each worker, so it sounds sensible to me to display separate
plan info for each worker or at least display the same in verbose or some
other mode and then display aggregated information at Gather node.  The
only point that needs more thought is that parallel plans will look big for
many number of workers.  I think this will need somewhat substantial
changes than what is done currently for parallel seq scan, so it is better
if others also share their opinion about this form of display of information
for parallel queries.


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Inaccurate results from numeric ln(), log(), exp() and pow()
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive