| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: [DESIGN] ParallelAppend |
| Date: | 2015-11-18 17:40:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZH7hUT1hfAVYBoegZ=tT-+4RPvZeOKNYjWZOxYFzghsg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 17 November 2015 at 20:08, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> However, the first parallel seq scan shows it getting 170314 rows.
>>> Another run shows it getting 194165 rows. The final result is
>>> correct, but as you can see from the rows on the Append node (59094295
>>> rows), it doesn't match the number of rows on the Gather node
>>> (30000000).
>>
>> Is this the same issue reported in
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRBF-i=qDg9b5nZrXYfChzBEZWmthxYPhidQvwoMOjHtzg@mail.gmail.com
>> and not yet fixed? I am inclined to think it probably is.
>
> Yes, that seems to be the same issue.
I've committed a fix for that issue now, so you shouldn't see it any
more if you retest this patch.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-11-18 18:31:45 | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-18 17:40:06 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |