Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> writes: >> Whether I get a parallel aggregate seems entirely determined by the number >> of rows, not the cost of preparing those rows.
> This is true, as far as I can tell and unfortunate. Feeding tables with > 100ks of rows, I get parallel plans, feeding 10ks of rows, never do, no > matter how costly the work going on within. That's true of changing costs > on the subquery select list, and on the aggregate transfn. This sounds like it might be the same issue being discussed in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMkU=1ycXNipvhWuweUVpKuyu6SpNjF=yhwu4c4us5jgvgx...@mail.gmail.com regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers