| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yuri Levinsky <yuril(at)celltick(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash partitioning. |
| Date: | 2013-06-26 15:13:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20130626151313.GD3341@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:04:11PM +0200, Markus Wanner wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 04:01 PM, ktm(at)rice(dot)edu wrote:
> > I think he is referring to the fact that with parallel query execution,
> > multiple partitions can be processed simultaneously instead of serially
> > as they are now with the resulting speed increase.
>
> Processing simultaneously is the purpose of parallel query execution,
> yes. But I see no reason for that not to work equally well for
> unpartitioned tables.
Well, I think by definition you are going to be able to spread lookups
for a particular range across more partitions with 'hash' than with
range or list partitioning.
--
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 | Markus Wanner | 2013-06-26 15:29:14 | Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll |
| Previous Message | Markus Wanner | 2013-06-26 15:04:11 | Re: Hash partitioning. |