From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel query execution |
Date: | 2013-01-17 02:44:53 |
Message-ID: | 20130117024453.GB683@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 05:04:05PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> * Gavin Flower (GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz) wrote:
> > How about being aware of multiple spindles - so if the requested
> > data covers multiple spindles, then data could be extracted in
> > parallel. This may, or may not, involve multiple I/O channels?
>
> Yes, this should dovetail with partitioning and tablespaces to pick up
> on exactly that.
>
>
> I'd rather not have the benefits of parallelism be tied to partitioning if we
> can help it. Hopefully implementing parallelism in core would result in
> something more transparent than that.
We will need a way to know we are not saturating the I/O channel with
random I/O that could have been sequential if it was single-threaded.
Tablespaces give us that info; not sure what else does.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-01-17 02:48:16 | Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-01-17 02:42:04 | Re: Parallel query execution |