On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > One disadvantage of retaining parallel-paths could be that it can > increase the number of combinations planner might need to evaluate > during planning (in particular during join path evaluation) unless we > do some special handling to avoid evaluation of such combinations.
Yes, that's true. But the overhead might not be very much. In the common case, many baserels and joinrels will have no parallel paths because the non-parallel paths is known to be better anyway. Also, if parallelism does seem to be winning, we're probably planning a query that involves accessing a fair amount of data, so a little extra planner overhead may not be so bad. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
