On 4/6/22 12:59, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2022-04-06 11:50:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> It does work, but Tom prefers not to have the test at all, so I'll just >> rip it out. > If I understand correctly the reason a large table is needed is to test > parallelism, right? Wouldn't the better fix be to just tweak the parallelism > settings for that table? See select_parallel.sql: > > -- encourage use of parallel plans > set parallel_setup_cost=0; > set parallel_tuple_cost=0; > set min_parallel_table_scan_size=0; > set max_parallel_workers_per_gather=4; > > might be worth also setting > set parallel_leader_participation = off; > > to avoid the leader processing everything before workers have even started up. >
OK, done that way, thanks. I also kept the table as unlogged and dropped it at the end. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com