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
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 |