From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Gather Merge |
Date: | 2017-02-20 08:28:40 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vajTT4fHxo_0b6Sg5KLrgeTQnO2-rfW6L7wVWckb3=_w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Rushabh Lathia
<rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks Amit for raising this point. I was not at all aware of mark/restore.
> I tried to come up with the case, but haven't found such case.
>
> For now here is the patch with comment update.
I think for reproducing this you need plan something like below (I
think this is a really bad plan, but you can use to test this
particular case).
MergeJoin
-> Index Scan
-> Gather Merge
->Parallel Index Scan
So if only IndexScan node is there as a inner node which support
Mark/Restore then we don't need to insert any materialize node. But
after we put Gather Merge (which don't support Mark/Restore) then we
need a materialize node on top of that. Therefore, plan should become
like this, I think so.
(But anyway if we have the Gather instead of the GatherMerge we would
required a Sort node on top of the Gather and Materialize is obviously
cheaper than the Sort.)
MergeJoin
-> Index Scan
-> Materialize
-> Gather Merge (Does not support mark/restore)
->Parallel Index Scan
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-20 09:07:44 | Re: Documentation improvements for partitioning |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2017-02-20 08:11:15 | Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw |