| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel query execution |
| Date: | 2013-01-16 17:29:16 |
| Message-ID: | 50F6E36C.8070507@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/16/2013 12:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:05:39AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Claudio, Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> It really seems like the areas where we could get the most "bang for the
>>>> buck" in parallelism would be:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Parallel sort
>>>> 2. Parallel aggregation (for commutative aggregates)
>>>> 3. Parallel nested loop join (especially for expression joins, like GIS)
>>>>
>>>> parallel data load? :/
>>> We have that in pg_restore, and I thinnk we are getting parallel dump in
>>> 9.3, right? Unfortunately, I don't see it in the last 9.3 commit-fest.
>>> Is it still being worked on?
>>>
>>
>> I am about half way through reviewing it. Unfortunately paid work
>> take precedence over unpaid work.
> Do you think it will make it into 9.3?
Yes, I hope it will.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-01-16 17:36:10 | Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2013-01-16 17:25:29 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |