On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Johann Spies <johann.spies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4 April 2017 at 14:07, Johann Spies <johann.spies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why would that be?
To answer my own question. After experimenting a lot we found that
9.6 uses a parallel seqscan that is actually a lot faster than using
the index on these large tables.
This, to us was a surprise!
If you have modern GPU's available, you could try the pg-strom extension - https://github.com/pg-strom/devel
It leverages GPU's to further parallelize scans.
