On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Thomas Munro >> > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > The attached patch fixes both the review comments as discussed above. >> > >> > >> > that should be fixed by turning costs on the explain, as is the >> > tradition. >> > >> >> Right. BTW, did you get a chance to run the original test (for which >> you have reported the problem) with this patch? > > > Yes, this patch makes it use a parallel scan, with great improvement. >
Thanks for the confirmation. Find rebased patch attached. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
parallel_paths_include_tlist_cost_v5.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
