From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal : Parallel Merge Join |
Date: | 2016-12-29 03:42:55 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-uRuD9acs_yU22e2=OG=dr_isUyzRwu7coAM-cPE=Zfgg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> FWIW, I've done quite a bit of testing on this patch, and also on the other
> patches adding parallel index scans and bitmap heap scan. I've been running
> TPC-H and TPC-DS on 16GB data sets with each patch, looking for regressions
> or crashes.
Thanks for looking into this.
>
> I haven't found any of that so far, which is good of course. It however
> seems the plan changes only for very few queries in those benchmarks with
> any of the patches, even after tweaking the costs to make parallel plans
> more likely.
You can also try with reducing random_page_cost (that will help
parallel merge join with index scan), in case your data fits in memory
and you are ensuring warm cache environment.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-12-29 03:57:10 | Re: Duplicate node tag assignments |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-12-29 03:33:50 | Re: pg_stat_activity.waiting_start |