On 16 September 2017 at 11:45, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> On 11 September 2017 at 18:55, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> How?  See, if you have four partial subpaths and two non-partial
>>> subpaths, then for parallel-aware append it considers all six paths in
>>> parallel path whereas for non-parallel-aware append it will consider
>>> just four paths and that too with sub-optimal strategy.  Can you
>>> please try to give me some example so that it will be clear.
>> Suppose 4 appendrel children have costs for their cheapest partial (p)
>> and non-partial paths (np)  as shown below :
>> p1=5000  np1=100
>> p2=200   np2=1000
>> p3=80   np3=2000
>> p4=3000  np4=50
>> Here, following two Append paths will be generated :
>> 1. a parallel-aware Append path with subpaths :
>> np1, p2, p3, np4
>> 2. Partial (i.e. non-parallel-aware) Append path with all partial subpaths:
>> p1,p2,p3,p4
>> Now, one thing we can do above is : Make the path#2 parallel-aware as
>> well; so both Append paths would be parallel-aware.
> Yes, we can do that and that is what I think is probably better.  So,
> the question remains that in which case non-parallel-aware partial
> append will be required?  Basically, it is not clear to me why after
> having parallel-aware partial append we need non-parallel-aware
> version?  Are you keeping it for the sake of backward-compatibility or
> something like for cases if someone has disabled parallel append with
> the help of new guc in this patch?

Yes one case is the enable_parallelappend GUC case. If a user disables
it, we do want to add the usual non-parallel-aware append partial

About backward compatibility, the concern we discussed in [1] was that
we better continue to have the usual non-parallel-aware partial Append
path, plus we should have an additional parallel-aware Append path
containing mix of partial and non-partial subpaths.

But thinking again on the example above, I think Amit, I tend to agree
that we don't have to worry about the existing behaviour, and so we
can make the path#2 parallel-aware as well.

Robert, can you please suggest what is your opinion on the paths that
are chosen in the above example ?


-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

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

Reply via email to