From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX |
Date: | 2017-03-04 08:43:37 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaQAsoGEPt0ttZ+W7VbL8Vf0Gr362LdU=mxhjdLupos6Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I guess that the workMem scaling threshold thing could be
>>> min_parallel_index_scan_size, rather than min_parallel_relation_size
>>> (which we now call min_parallel_table_scan_size)?
>>
>> No, it should be based on min_parallel_table_scan_size, because that
>> is the size of the parallel heap scan that will be done as input to
>> the sort.
>
> I'm talking about the extra thing we do to prevent parallelism from
> being used when per-worker workMem is excessively low. That has much
> more to do with projected index size than current heap size.
Oh. But then I don't see why you need min_parallel_anything. That's
just based on an estimate of the amount of data per worker vs.
maintenance_work_mem, isn't it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-04 08:47:13 | Re: Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-04 08:31:55 | Re: Cost model for parallel CREATE INDEX |