4 ms·
Isn't this in postgres 9.6 anyway, due to the parallel sequential scans? i.e. if your aggregate function is defined with `PARALLEL SAFE`, then this should magi
by craigds 11y ago
Isn't this in postgres 9.6 anyway, due to the parallel sequential scans?
i.e. if your aggregate function is defined with `PARALLEL SAFE`, then this should magically work anyway. Yes?
(I'm aware this solution works with postgres 9.5 too)
- rachbelaid 11y agoFrom what I've been reading on the on the development of 9.6 (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/ https://commitfest.postgresql.org/), we may only see parallel seq scan and ordering coming to 9.6. They added the foundation to make more thing parallele but I don't think that we can hope to see parallel aggregation coming into 9.6
- anarazel 11y agoNo, it's not just that simple. Parallel seqscan is in 9.6, true, but parallel aggregation needs a bunch of things on top of that. You can't just compute aggregations in parallel and expect meaningful results - several workers might end up computing data for the same group. So there needs to be logic to re-aggregate. Nothing impossible, but also nothing done in 5 minutes.