Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-u2q3fhLN3gOTEuEhn9oov=9F2HiQzqGNzst7WO=dAx8A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 at 4:48 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Either we can pass "num_gene" to merge_clump or we can store num_gene
>> in the root. And inside merge_clump we can check. Do you see some more
>> complexity?
>>

I think something like that should work.
Ok


> After putting some more thought I see one more problem but not sure
> whether we can solve it easily. Now, if we skip generating the gather
> path at top level node then our cost comparison while adding the
> element to pool will not be correct as we are skipping some of the
> paths (gather path).  And, it's very much possible that the path1 is
> cheaper than path2 without adding gather on top of it but with gather,
> path2 can be cheaper.
>

I think that should not matter because the costing of gather is mainly
based on a number of rows and that should be same for both path1 and
path2 in this case.

Yeah, I think you are right.



--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery