| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | hs(at)cybertec(dot)at |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Threaded Sorting |
| Date: | 2002-10-04 13:45:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20100.1033739157@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> Did anybody think about threaded sorting so far?
> Assume an SMP machine. In the case of building an index or in the case
> of sorting a lot of data there is just one backend working. Therefore
> just one CPU is used.
> What about starting a thread for every temporary file being created?
> This way CREATE INDEX could use many CPUs.
In my experience, once you have enough data to force a temp file to be
used, the sort algorithm is I/O bound anyway. Throwing more CPUs at it
won't help much.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-04 13:54:42 | Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-04 13:37:02 | numeric hierarchy again (was Re: floor function in 7.3b2) |