Re: Parallel Query - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: Parallel Query
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1yuhiG8_V_XEjzLOUz9Vw2eZDoRcHKXXU2bDC1qsR9fgg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Parallel Query  (Luís Roberto Weck <luisroberto@siscobra.com.br>)
Responses Re: Parallel Query  (Luís Roberto Weck <luisroberto@siscobra.com.br>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:11 PM Luís Roberto Weck <luisroberto@siscobra.com.br> wrote:
Hi!

Is there a reason query 3 can't use parallel workers? Using q1 and q2
they seem very similar but can use up to 4 workers to run faster:

q1: https://pastebin.com/ufkbSmfB
q2: https://pastebin.com/Yt32zRNX
q3: https://pastebin.com/dqh7yKPb

The sort node on q3 takes almost 12 seconds, making the query run on 68 
if I had set enough work_mem to make it all in memory.

The third one thinks it is going find 3454539 output rows.  If it run in parallel, it thinks it will be passing lots of rows up from the parallel workers, and charges a high price (parallel_tuple_cost = 0.1) for doing so.  So you can try lowering  parallel_tuple_cost, or figuring out why the estimate is so bad.

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Luís Roberto Weck
Date:
Subject: Parallel Query
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Query