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

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jJvk120zqF6RHtw=HZ3Ux2hA2jA2A5VXn_NqRZSJRtmuA@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 21 August 2017 at 11:42, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:

>> or of 2)
>> treating cost = speed, so we actually reduce the cost of a parallel
>> plan rather than increasing it so it is more likely to be picked.
>>
>
> Yeah, this is what is being currently followed for costing of parallel
> plans and this patch also tries to follow the same.

OK, I understand this better now, thanks.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Explicit relation name in VACUUM VERBOSE log
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] proposal: psql command \graw