Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Date: 2017-08-15 13:45:42
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY409erwRzj-pBeE1vzD2dafBFiqWw8dNS5Uu8kdjVefg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think skipping a generation of gather paths for scan node or top
> level join node generated via standard_join_search seems straight
> forward, but skipping for paths generated via geqo seems to be tricky
> (See use of generate_gather_paths in merge_clump). Assuming, we find
> some way to skip it for top level scan/join node, I don't think that
> will be sufficient, we have some special way to push target list below
> Gather node in apply_projection_to_path, we need to move that part as
> well in generate_gather_paths.

I don't think that can work, because at that point we don't know what
target list the upper node wants to impose.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-08-15 13:46:09 Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-08-15 13:40:27 Re: scan on inheritance parent with no children in current session