Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 22 March 2016 at 20:45, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> While having parallelism is awesome, it's only going to affect a
>>> (arguably small or big depending on your viewpoint) subset of users. It's
>>> going to be massive for those users, but it's not going to be useful for
>>> anywhere near as many users as streaming replication+hot standby+pg_upgrade
>>> in 9.0, or pitr+windows in 8.0. And yes, the vacuum freeze thing is also
>>> going to be great - for a small subset of users (yes, those users are in a
>>> lot of pain now).
>>
>> We don't yet have full parallel query, we only have parallel scan and
>> parallel aggregation.
>
> My comment here missed the point that parallel hash join is also now
> possible for small hash tables, so we at least have a useful subset of
> functionality across parallel scan/join/agg.

Not sure if this matters to you, but nested loops with an inner index
scan also work.  The thing we don't support in parallel yet is merge
joins.