Hi,
On 2022-04-06 11:50:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It does work, but Tom prefers not to have the test at all, so I'll just
> rip it out.
If I understand correctly the reason a large table is needed is to test
parallelism, right? Wouldn't the better fix be to just tweak the parallelism
settings for that table? See select_parallel.sql:
-- encourage use of parallel plans
set parallel_setup_cost=0;
set parallel_tuple_cost=0;
set min_parallel_table_scan_size=0;
set max_parallel_workers_per_gather=4;
might be worth also setting
set parallel_leader_participation = off;
to avoid the leader processing everything before workers have even started up.
Greetings,
Andres Freund