On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So because of this high projection cost the seqpath and parallel path
>>> both have fuzzily same cost but seqpath is winning because it's
>>> parallel safe.
>>
>>
>> I think you are correct. However, unless parallel_tuple_cost is set very
>> low, apply_projection_to_path never gets called with the Gather path as an
>> argument. It gets ruled out at some earlier stage, presumably because it
>> assumes the projection step cannot make it win if it is already behind by
>> enough.
>>
>
> I think that is genuine because tuple communication cost is very high.
> If your table is reasonable large then you might want to try by
> increasing parallel workers (Alter Table ... Set (parallel_workers =
> ..))
>
>> So the attached patch improves things, but doesn't go far enough.
>>
>
> It seems to that we need to adjust the cost based on if the below node
> is projection capable. See attached.
Patch looks good to me.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
