Re: 9.6beta, parallel execution and cpu_tuple_cost - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Thomas Kellerer
Subject Re: 9.6beta, parallel execution and cpu_tuple_cost
Date
Msg-id ni9l9k$nnb$1@ger.gmane.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.6beta, parallel execution and cpu_tuple_cost  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Tom Lane schrieb am 27.05.2016 um 15:48:
> Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> writes:
>> while playing around with the parallel aggregates and seq scan in
>> 9.6beta I noticed that Postgres will stop using parallel plans when
>> cpu_tuple_cost is set to a very small number.
>
> If you don't reduce the parallel-plan cost factors proportionally,
> it's not very surprising that reducing that would tend to bias the
> planner away from using parallel plans.  See parallel_setup_cost and
> parallel_tuple_cost.

Ah, thanks. That makes sense.

The low value for cpu_tuple_cost was actually a typo.

Adjusting parallel_tuple_cost does bring back the parallel plan.

Thomas



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.6beta, parallel execution and cpu_tuple_cost
Next
From: Jeff Baldwin
Date:
Subject: Migrate 2 DB's - v8.3