On 5 May 2017 at 13:37, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-05-02 15:13:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Multiple people (including David Rowley >> as well as folks here at EnterpriseDB) have demonstrated that for >> certain queries, we can actually use a lot more workers and everything >> works great. The problem is that for other queries, using a lot of >> workers works terribly. The planner doesn't know how to figure out >> which it'll be - and honestly, I don't either. > > Have those benchmarks, even in a very informal form, been shared / > collected / referenced centrally? I'd be very interested to know where > the different contention points are. Possibilities:
I posted mine on [1], although the post does not go into much detail about the contention points. I only really briefly mention it at the end. [1] https://blog.2ndquadrant.com/parallel-monster-benchmark/#comment-248273 -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers