On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca> wrote:
> From my perspective, this is much much better. For sufficiently large
> tables, I get parallel behaviour without jimmying with the defaults on
> parallel_setup_cost and parallel_tuple_cost. *And*, the parallel behaviour
> *is* sensitive to the costs of functions in target lists, so reasonably
> chosen costs will flip us into a parallel mode for expensive functions
> against smaller tables too.
>
Thanks for the confirmation.
> Hopefully some variant of this finds it's way into core! Is there any way I
> can productively help?
You have already helped a lot by providing the use case, but feel free
to ping on that thread if you find it is not moving.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
