Re: PATCH: enabling parallel execution for cursors explicitly (experimental)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: enabling parallel execution for cursors explicitly (experimental)
Date: 2017-11-02 02:35:55
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaUih033KS2L51HwD5JdiKsgL2wbTmyemzZsWNRDWWfdA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That forces materialization, and I'm guessing part of Tomas's goal
> here is to prevent the need to materialize into a temp table /
> tuplestore / etc.

I get that, but if you're running a query like "SELECT * FROM
bigtable", you don't need parallel query in the first place, because a
single backend is quite capable of sending back the rows as fast as a
client can read them. If you're running a query like "SELECT * FROM
bigtable WHERE <highly selective predicate>" then that's a good use
case for parallel query, but then materializing it isn't that bad
because the result set is a lot smaller than the original table.

I am not disputing the idea that there are *some* cases where parallel
query is useful and materialization is still undesirable, of course.

--
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 Bossart, Nathan 2017-11-02 02:37:05 Re: Enhancements to passwordcheck
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-11-02 02:32:46 Re: Enhancements to passwordcheck