From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Karel K(dot) Rozhoň <karel(dot)rozhon(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-students(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Google Summer of code 2013 |
Date: | 2013-04-15 16:27:45 |
Message-ID: | 20130415162745.GT4361@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-students |
* Karel K. Rozhoň (karel(dot)rozhon(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Of course I don't see all aspects of this problem, so I cannot tell what should be good for future. But I have done some profiles of group by select and I believe, parallel calling of some hash procedures could help.
There seems to be some confuison here. It's certainly true that *many*
(most? all?) pieces of query processing would benefit from parallel
execution; there is no debate on that.
The issue is that PG is not currently set up to do *any* per-query
parallel processing and it is *not* a trival thing to change that. We
can talk all day about how wonderful it'd be to do parallel hashing,
parallel sorting, etc, but until PG has a way to parallelize query
processing, there's really no point to writing code to parallelize
individual nodes.
> Of course I know, these simply case is only teoretical and in real tables are data much more complicated, but as I can see, almost 40% of CPU time was computed only one hash function: hash_search_with_hash_value.
Improvements to that would be great, but you can't simply call
pthread_create() in a PG backend and expect things to work.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | viod | 2013-04-15 16:45:14 | Re: Google Summer of code 2013 |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2013-04-15 15:55:58 | Re: Google Summer of code 2013 |