On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:33 AM, David Rowley
<david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 14 February 2017 at 10:56, Brad DeJong <brad.dej...@infor.com> wrote:
>> David Rowley wrote:
>>> I propose we just remove the whole paragraph, and mention about
>>> the planning and estimated number of groups stuff in another new paragraph.
>>>
>>> I've attached a patch to this effect ...
>>
>> s/In a worse case scenario/In the worst case scenario,/
>>
>> Other than that, the phrasing in the new patch reads very smoothly.
>
> Thanks. Updated patch attached.
>
>

+    Aggregate</> stage. For such cases there is clearly going to be no
+    performance benefit to using parallel aggregation.

A comma is required after "For such cases"

> The query planner takes
> +    this into account during the planning process and will choose how to
> +    perform the aggregation accordingly.

This part of the sentence sounds unclear.   It doesn't clearly
indicate that planner won't choose a parallel plan in such cases.


-- 
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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to