Moin, On Fri, November 3, 2017 7:13 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > 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
When looking at the web archive, the link is broken, even though in the mail above it appears correct for me: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/28621.1509750807%40sss.pgh.pa.us (shortened: http://bit.ly/2zetO5T) Seems the email-obfuskation breaks such links? Here is a short-link for people reading it via the archive on http: http://bit.ly/2hF4lIt Best regards, Tels -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
