From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |
Date: | 2017-11-10 02:31:22 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LCck9WAb0=0qiKWVyDP4tiJqsvYh_agrWQjoRXKYOv9A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> This change looks suspicious to me. I think here we can't use the
>> tupDesc constructed from targetlist. One problem, I could see is that
>> the check for hasOid setting in tlist_matches_tupdesc won't give the
>> correct answer. In case of the scan, we use the tuple descriptor
>> stored in relation descriptor which will allow us to take the right
>> decision in tlist_matches_tupdesc. If you try the statement CREATE
>> TABLE as_select1 AS SELECT * FROM pg_class WHERE relkind = 'r'; in
>> force_parallel_mode=regress, then you can reproduce the problem I am
>> trying to highlight.
>
> I tried this, but nothing seemed to be obviously broken. Then I
> realized that the CREATE TABLE command wasn't using parallelism, so I
> retried with parallel_setup_cost = 0, parallel_tuple_cost = 0, and
> min_parallel_table_scan_size = 0. That got it to use parallel query,
> but I still don't see anything broken. Can you clarify further?
>
Have you set force_parallel_mode=regress; before running the
statement? If so, then why you need to tune other parallel query
related parameters?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2017-11-10 02:47:55 | Re: [HACKERS] OpeSSL - PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-11-10 02:03:43 | Re: Runtime Partition Pruning |