On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The currently-committed code generates paths where nested loops and > hash joins get pushed beneath the Gather node, but does not generate > paths where merge joins have been pushed beneath the Gather node. And > the reason I didn't try to generate those paths is because I believe > they will almost always suck. As of now, what we know how to do is > build a partial path for a join by joining a partial path for the > outer input rel against an ordinary path for the inner rel. That > means that the work of generating the inner rel has to be redone in > each worker. That's not a problem if we've got something like a > nested loop with a parameterized inner index scan, because that sort > of plan redoes all the work for every row anyway. It is a problem for > a hash join, but it's not too hard for it to be worthwhile anyway if > the build table is small. For a merge join, though, it seems rather > unpromising. It's really doubtful that we want each worker to > independently sort the inner rel and then have them join their own > subset of the outer rel against their own copy of the sort. *Maybe* > it could win if the inner path is an index scan, but I wasn't really > sure that would come up and be a win often enough to be worth the cost > of generating the path. We tend to only use merge joins when both of > the relations involved are large, and index-scanning a large relation > tends to lose to sorting it. So it just seemed like a dead end.
This is the first message on this subthread that actually gave me a feeling I understood the issue under discussion. It explains the distinction between plans that are parallel-safe and plans that would actually do something different under a parallel worker -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers