On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Setting parallel_workers to 8 changes the threshold for the parallel to > even > >> be considered from parellel_tuple_cost <= 0.0049 to <= 0.0076. So it is > >> going in the correct direction, but not by enough to matter. > >> > > > > You might want to play with cpu_tuple_cost and or seq_page_cost. > > > > I don't know whether the patch will completely solve your problem, but > this seems to be the right thing to do. Do you think we should stick > this for next CF? > It doesn't solve the problem for me, but I agree it is an improvement we should commit. Cheers, Jeff