Peter, * Peter Geoghegan (p...@bowt.ie) wrote: > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If the result of > > compute_parallel_workers() based on min_parallel_table_scan_size is > > smaller, then use that value instead. I must be confused, because I > > actually though that was the exact algorithm you were describing, and > > it sounded good to me. > > It is, but I was using that with index size, not table size. I can > change it to be table size, based on what you said. But the workMem > related cap, which probably won't end up being applied all that often > in practice, *should* still do something with projected index size, > since that really is what we're sorting, which could be very different > (e.g. with partial indexes).
Isn't that always going to be very different, unless you're creating a single index across every column in the table..? Or perhaps I've misunderstood what you're comparing as being 'very different' in your last sentence. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature