From: | Alex Kaiser <alextkaiser(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Getting an index scan to be a parallel index scan |
Date: | 2023-02-02 05:00:09 |
Message-ID: | CAN4ko3AwU+ro-hWoWEmertarD4K+sOh3=svqyfGQ75KyfiZEEw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Okay after reading
http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2018/06/using-forceparallelmode-correctly.html I
do see that I was using force_parallel_mode incorectly and wouldn't have
gotten what I wanted even if the original query was possible to parallelize.
> Maybe, but unfairness multiplies if it's part of a larger plan
Ah, I didn't think of that, and it's a good point.
> Ok I hacked my copy of PostgreSQL to let me set parallel_setup_costs
> to negative numbers ...
Thanks for taking the time to do that and look into that. I don't actually
think it's worth the confusion to allow this in general, but I was thinking
that setting "force_parallel_mode = on" would essentially be doing
something equivalent to this (though I now see that is wrong).
> But it's probing every index for every one of the values in the big
> list, not just the ones that have a non-zero chance of finding a
> match, which is a waste of cycles.
In my case, this would actually be quite helpful because the real
bottleneck when I run this in production is time spent waiting for IO. I
was hoping to spread that IO wait time over multiple threads, and wouldn't
really care about the few extra wasted CPU cycles. But I can't actually do
this as I can't set parallel_setup_costs to be negative, so I wouldn't be
able to get PG to choose the parallel plan even if I did partition the
table.
> If I had more timerons myself ...
If only we all had more timerons ... :)
Thanks,
Alex Kaiser
On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 6:12 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 14:49, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > If I had more timerons myself, I'd like to try to make parallel
> > function scans, or parallel CTE scans, work...
>
> I've not really looked in detail but I thought parallel VALUES scan
> might be easier than those two.
>
> David
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Jackson | 2023-02-03 16:25:45 | Re: Database Stalls |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-02-02 02:11:53 | Re: Getting an index scan to be a parallel index scan |