Hi, On 2025-07-17 15:01:55 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 at 12:44, Greg Hennessy <greg.henne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > workers, but there isn't an easy way to get more > > workers. > > Is "alter table ... set (parallel_workers=N);" not easy enough?
I don't think that's a great approach, as that basically means the user has to do all the computation for how many workers are a good idea themselves. Manually setting it obviously doesn't deal with future growth etc. Right now we basically assume that the benefit of parallelism reduces substantially with every additional parallel worker, but for things like seqscans that's really not true. I've seen reasonably-close-to-linear scalability for parallel seqscans up to 48 workers (the CPUs in the system I tested on). Given that our degree-of-parallelism logic doesn't really make sense. Greetings, Andres Freund
