On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> wrote: > From my perspective, this is much much better. For sufficiently large > tables, I get parallel behaviour without jimmying with the defaults on > parallel_setup_cost and parallel_tuple_cost. *And*, the parallel behaviour > *is* sensitive to the costs of functions in target lists, so reasonably > chosen costs will flip us into a parallel mode for expensive functions > against smaller tables too. >
Thanks for the confirmation. > Hopefully some variant of this finds it's way into core! Is there any way I > can productively help? You have already helped a lot by providing the use case, but feel free to ping on that thread if you find it is not moving. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
