On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 02:46, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> So I don't think the current costing is wrong, but it certainly is more
> complex. But the test does not test what it intended - I have two ideas
> how to make it work:
>
> 1) increase the number of rows in the table
>
> 2) increase cpu_operator_cost (for that one test?)
>
> 3) tweak the costing somehow, to increase the cost a bit
Why not, 4) SET parallel_setup_cost = 0; there are plenty of other
places we do just that so we get a parallel plan without having to
generate enough cost to drown out the parallel worker startup cost.
Here are a couple of patches to demo the idea.
David
