| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2014-12-19 14:39:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20141219143957.GB29570@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Marko Tiikkaja (marko(at)joh(dot)to) wrote:
> On 12/19/14 3:27 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >We'd have to coach our users to
> >constantly be tweaking the enable_parallel_query (or whatever) option
> >for the queries where it helps and turning it off for others. I'm not
> >so excited about that.
>
> I'd be perfectly (that means 100%) happy if it just defaulted to
> off, but I could turn it up to 11 whenever I needed it. I don't
> believe to be the only one with this opinion, either.
Perhaps we should reconsider our general position on hints then and
add them so users can define the plan to be used.. For my part, I don't
see this as all that much different.
Consider if we were just adding HashJoin support today as an example.
Would we be happy if we had to default to enable_hashjoin = off? Or if
users had to do that regularly because our costing was horrid? It's bad
enough that we have to resort to those tweaks today in rare cases.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-12-19 14:53:53 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-12-19 14:32:25 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |