Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Agreed, so I have rebased your patch and passed heap_pages as -1 for > index_only scans as discussed. Also, Rafia has tested with attached > patch that parallel index and parallel index only scans are picked for >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-13 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Amit Kapila

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> I think it can give us benefit in >>> such cases as well

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-08 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> I think it can give us benefit in >> such cases as well (especially when we have to discard rows based heap >> rows). Now, consider it

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > If we have lesser index pages and more heap pages, then we limit the > parallelism based on index pages. Kinda. In most cases, we figure out the degree of parallelism based on heap pages and then we figure out the

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-07 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior, >> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after >>

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior, > however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after > Parallel Append. I am not sure if this is the right time to consider > it or

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-06 Thread Ashutosh Sharma
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: >>> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior, >>> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-06 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: >> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior, >> however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after >> Parallel Append. I am not sure if this is the right time to consider >> it

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-06 Thread Ashutosh Sharma
> I also think that commit didn't intend to change the behavior, > however, the point is how sensible is it to keep such behavior after > Parallel Append. I am not sure if this is the right time to consider > it or shall we wait till Parallel Append is committed. > >> I think the problem here is

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-06 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> RCA: >>> >>> From "Replace min_parallel_relation_size with two new GUCs" commit >>> onwards, we are not assigning parallel workers for

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> RCA: >> >> From "Replace min_parallel_relation_size with two new GUCs" commit >> onwards, we are not assigning parallel workers for the child rel with >> zero heap pages. This means we won't be able to create a

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-05 Thread Ashutosh Sharma
> > Right, but OTOH, if we assign parallel workers by default, then it is > quite possible that it would result in much worse plans. Consider a > case where partition hierarchy has 1000 partitions and only one of > them is big enough to allow parallel workers. Now in this case, with > your

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-05 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > Hi All, > > From following git commit onwards, parallel seq scan is never getting > selected for inheritance or partitioned tables. > > > commit 51ee6f3160d2e1515ed6197594bda67eb99dc2cc > Author: Robert Haas

[HACKERS] Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table

2017-03-04 Thread Ashutosh Sharma
Hi All, >From following git commit onwards, parallel seq scan is never getting selected for inheritance or partitioned tables. commit 51ee6f3160d2e1515ed6197594bda67eb99dc2cc Author: Robert Haas Date: Wed Feb 15 13:37:24 2017 -0500 Replace