On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think the parallel_workers reloption should override the degree of
>>> parallelism for any sort of parallel scan on that table.  Had I
>>> intended it to apply only to sequential scans, I would have named it
>>> differently.
>> I think there is big difference of size of relation to scan between
>> parallel sequential scan and parallel (range) index scan which could
>> make it difficult for user to choose the value of this parameter.  Why
>> do you think that the parallel_workers reloption should suffice all
>> type of scans for a table?  I could only think of providing it based
>> on thinking that lesser config knobs makes life easier.
> Well, we could do that, but it would be fairly complicated and it
> doesn't seem to me to be the right place to focus our efforts.  I'd
> rather try to figure out some way to make the planner smarter, because
> even if users can override the number of workers on a
> per-table-per-scan-type basis, they're probably still going to find
> using parallel query pretty frustrating unless we make the
> number-of-workers formula smarter than it is today.  Anyway, even if
> we do decide to add more reloptions than just parallel_degree someday,
> couldn't that be left for a separate patch?

That makes sense to me.  As of now, patch doesn't consider reloptions
for parallel index scans.  So, I think we can leave it as it is and
then later as a separate patch decide whether to use reloption of
table or a separate reloption for index would be better choice.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to