From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Maxim Boguk <maxim(dot)boguk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18588: Cannot force/let database use parallel execution in simple case. |
Date: | 2024-08-22 22:52:40 |
Message-ID: | 2088498.1724367160@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I played around with the attached script and set some breakpoints in
> cost_index(). I'm seeing the same thing as you with the parallel path
> being only slightly cheaper, but when looking at cost_index(), it's
> easy to see why.
> It's only the cpu_run_cost that's divided by the parallel_divisor.
D'oh.
What Maxim is observing is that he's getting I/O concurrency from
multiple workers; and that's an effect we're simply not accounting
for here. cost_seqscan excuses the same omission with
* It may be possible to amortize some of the I/O cost, but probably
* not very much, because most operating systems already do aggressive
* prefetching. For now, we assume that the disk run cost can't be
* amortized at all.
but I don't think this prefetch argument applies to index scans.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-08-22 23:11:40 | Re: BUG #18588: Cannot force/let database use parallel execution in simple case. |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-08-22 22:44:27 | Re: BUG #18588: Cannot force/let database use parallel execution in simple case. |