Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps
 (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1kX9f9-0001oj-2w
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:04:19 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1kX9f5-0008TN-UE
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:04:15 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <bruce@momjian.us>)
	id 1kX9f5-0008TG-NR
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:04:15 +0000
Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <bruce@momjian.us>)
	id 1kX9f2-0000fO-RO
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:04:14 +0000
Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <bruce@momjian.us>)
	id 1kX9ez-0004s5-Fa; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:04:09 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:04:09 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel.westermann@dbi-services.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Wrong example in the bloom documentation
Message-ID: <20201026210409.GA4951@momjian.us>
References: 
 <ZR0P278MB0122119FAE78721A694C30C8D2340@ZR0P278MB0122.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <GVAP278MB01028F3C84C0A724412854EDD20B0@GVAP278MB0102.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <20201008162310.GA13054@momjian.us>
 <GVAP278MB010226D15C90933B3C2D198BD20B0@GVAP278MB0102.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <2622731.1602186212@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20201008195352.GA5062@momjian.us>
 <GVAP278MB01026C00EA4E25E35062483FD2080@GVAP278MB0102.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <20201009150832.GB1459@momjian.us>
 <20201015235019.GH3797@momjian.us>
 <GVAP278MB01022477E6F7AE58E207CF25D2000@GVAP278MB0102.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <GVAP278MB01022477E6F7AE58E207CF25D2000@GVAP278MB0102.CHEP278.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:50:26PM +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
> On Fri, Oct  9, 2020 at 11:08:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >This is not applying to PG 12 or earlier because the patch mentions JIT,
> >which was only mentioned in the PG bloom docs in PG 13+.
> 
> Does that mean we need separate patches for each release starting with 10? 
> As I am not frequently writing patches, I would need some help here.

I can regenerate the output for older versions using your patch.
However, I am confused about the parallelism you are seeing.  Your patch
shows:

	   Without the two indexes being created, a parallel sequential scan will happen for the query below:
	                                            -------------------
	<programlisting>
	=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM tbloom WHERE i2 = 898732 AND i5 = 123451;
	                                            QUERY PLAN
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	 Seq Scan on tbloom  (cost=0.00..214.00 rows=1 width=24) (actual time=2.729..2.731 rows=0 loops=1)
	   Filter: ((i2 = 898732) AND (i5 = 123451))
	   Rows Removed by Filter: 10000
	 Planning Time: 0.257 ms
	 Execution Time: 2.764 ms
	(5 rows)

However, I don't see any parallelism in this output.  Also, I don't see
any parallelism once the indexes are created.  What PG version is this?
and what config settings did you use?  Thanks.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee