Open yhuelf opened 1 year ago
Compare with the parallel hash join for the same query.
The only difference with before is a RESET enable_parallel_hash;
Same problem with a merge join, of course, as per the documentation
Noticed the same, when workers are present the rows in the plan are the average returned per worker despite the number of loops.
In this plan, the inner side of the join is executed in full for each worker and the leader. This means that every process must have a private copy of the hash. Therefore, it is inappropriate to multiply the number of rows by "loops" in this case (nodes 5 and 6).
See here for further details : https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/parallel-plans.html#PARALLEL-JOINS