On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't it better to call it as Parallel Aggregate instead of Partial
> Aggregate. Initialy, we have kept Partial for seqscan, but later on we
> changed to Parallel Seq Scan, so I am not able to think why it is better to
> call Partial incase of Aggregates.
I think partial is the right terminology. Unlike a parallel
sequential scan, a partial aggregate isn't parallel-aware and could be
used in contexts having nothing to do with parallelism. It's just
that it outputs transition values instead of a finalized value.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company