From: | mohini mane <mohini(dot)android(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Parallel hints in PostgreSQL with consistent perfromance |
Date: | 2024-01-02 18:06:10 |
Message-ID: | CA+NBJdk=Y5hOSzp02kNmGe5xaogErFyfMGPaaNHwfWncpw-bCA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024, 21:45 David G. Johnston, <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 8:12 AM mohini mane <mohini(dot)android(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have executed the SELECT query with 2,4 & 6 parallel degree however
>>>> every time only 4 workers launched & there was a slight increase in
>>>> Execution time as well,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Adding an ignored comment to your SQL would not be expected to do
>>> anything. So it is not surprising that it does not do anything about
>>> the number of workers launched. It is just a comment. A note to the human
>>> who is reading the code.
>>> * >> As I am using pg_hint_plan extension so as expected hints should
>>> not get ignored by the optimizer .*
>>>
>>
> Sounds like a bug you should go tell the pg_hint_plan authors about then.
>
*>> I am getting same results with or without extension [in my case
it's pg_hint_plan] still I will check with the respective team, Thanks .*
>
> David J.
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jerry Brenner | 2024-01-02 18:28:31 | Questions about "Output" in EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-01-02 16:14:37 | Re: Parallel hints in PostgreSQL with consistent perfromance |