Re: fix cost subqueryscan wrong parallel cost

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "bucoo(at)sohu(dot)com" <bucoo(at)sohu(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: fix cost subqueryscan wrong parallel cost
Date: 2022-04-14 16:49:55
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZTKQvu+0wczi0np8RmcJW2ppbeq5D1pwhLMxwsP1b=MQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 2:57 AM bucoo(at)sohu(dot)com <bucoo(at)sohu(dot)com> wrote:
> The cost_subqueryscan function does not judge whether it is parallel.

I don't see any reason why it would need to do that. A subquery scan
isn't parallel aware.

> regress
> -- Incremental sort vs. set operations with varno 0
> set enable_hashagg to off;
> explain (costs off) select * from t union select * from t order by 1,3;
> QUERY PLAN
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Incremental Sort
> Sort Key: t.a, t.c
> Presorted Key: t.a
> -> Unique
> -> Sort
> Sort Key: t.a, t.b, t.c
> -> Append
> -> Gather
> Workers Planned: 2
> -> Parallel Seq Scan on t
> -> Gather
> Workers Planned: 2
> -> Parallel Seq Scan on t t_1
> to
> Incremental Sort
> Sort Key: t.a, t.c
> Presorted Key: t.a
> -> Unique
> -> Sort
> Sort Key: t.a, t.b, t.c
> -> Gather
> Workers Planned: 2
> -> Parallel Append
> -> Parallel Seq Scan on t
> -> Parallel Seq Scan on t t_1
> Obviously the latter is less expensive

Generally it should be. But there's no subquery scan visible here.

There may well be something wrong here, but I don't think that you've
diagnosed the problem correctly, or explained it clearly.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-04-14 16:54:25 Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("HaveRegisteredOrActiveSnapshot()", File: "toast_internals.c", Line: 670, PID: 19403)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2022-04-14 16:48:30 Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse