Re: [HACKERS] Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzkqpZfpaE3Yx4AAztYypOdONWmTs=SsF2K8KupoagptaQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh.  But then I don't see why you need min_parallel_anything.  That's
> just based on an estimate of the amount of data per worker vs.
> maintenance_work_mem, isn't it?

Yes -- and it's generally a pretty good estimate.

I don't really know what minimum amount of memory to insist workers
have, which is why I provisionally chose one of those GUCs as the
threshold.

Any better ideas?

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP