5 ms·
That should already have been improved a lot over the last few versions. Which version did you observe this with last, and if it was PG 10 or PG11, what type of
by anarazel 7y ago
That should already have been improved a lot over the last few versions. Which version did you observe this with last, and if it was PG 10 or PG11, what type of query was this?
- riku_iki 7y agoI run PG10 (default on Ubuntu LTS), usually join table with billion rows with table with millions rows with table with thousand rows, and constantly observe situation when just one core is loaded by 100%, and others are idle.
- anarazel 7y agoHm, that should have gotten better with 11 (shared parallel hashjoin), but even before, there's plenty plans where parallelism is possible (by e.g. building the hashtable for a hashjoin over the smaller table(s) in each worker). Any chance parallelism is disabled?
- riku_iki 7y agoThank you for suggestion, I will check config options listed in this post when will have a chance: https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/226654/how-can-i-disable-parallel-queries-in-postgresql https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/226654/how-can-i-dis...