Re: Parallel Seq Scan
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobKaYREemD-iyGpgUeEajJ5fsoGejuYk0CgE9LXTWy79A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Parallel Seq Scan (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm confused. Your actual test numbers seem to show that the >> performance with the block-by-block approach was slightly higher with >> parallelism than without, where as the performance with the >> chunk-by-chunk approach was lower with parallelism than without, but >> the text quoted above, summarizing those numbers, says the opposite. > > Sorry for causing confusion, I should have been more explicit about > explaining the numbers. Let me try again, > Values in columns is time in milliseconds to complete the execution, > so higher means it took more time. If you see in block-by-block, the > time taken to complete the execution with 2 workers is more than > no workers which means parallelism has degraded the performance. *facepalm* Oh, yeah, right. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: