On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 6:20 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:52 PM Deng, Gang wrote:
> > Thank you for the comment. Yes, I agree the alternative of using
> > '(!parallel)', so that no need to test the bit. Will someone submit patch
> > to for it accordingly?
>
> Here's a
(Replies to both Gang and Tom below).
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:52 PM Deng, Gang wrote:
> Thank you for the comment. Yes, I agree the alternative of using
> '(!parallel)', so that no need to test the bit. Will someone submit patch to
> for it accordingly?
Here's a patch like that.
On Fri,
; pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Resolve Parallel Hash Join Performance Issue
Thomas Munro writes:
> Right, I see. The funny thing is that the match bit is not even used
> in this query (it's used for right and full hash join, and those
> aren't supported for parallel
...@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Resolve Parallel Hash Join Performance Issue
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:04 PM Deng, Gang wrote:
> Attached is a patch to resolve parallel hash join performance issue. This is
> my first time to contribute patch to PostgreSQL community, I referred one of
> previo
Thomas Munro writes:
> Right, I see. The funny thing is that the match bit is not even used
> in this query (it's used for right and full hash join, and those
> aren't supported for parallel joins yet). Hmm. So, instead of the
> test you proposed, an alternative would be to use if (!parallel).
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:04 PM Deng, Gang wrote:
> Attached is a patch to resolve parallel hash join performance issue. This is
> my first time to contribute patch to PostgreSQL community, I referred one of
> previous thread as template to report the issue and patch. Please let me know
> if
