| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel) |
| Date: | 2015-12-14 08:51:41 |
| Message-ID: | 566E831D.1050703@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2015/12/14 17:34, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:40:20 -0500, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote
>> But is it important enough to be worthwhile? Maybe, maybe not. I
>> think we should be working toward a world where the Gather is at the
>> top of the plan tree as often as possible, in which case
>> asynchronously kicking off a Gather node won't be that exciting any
>> more - see notes on the "parallelism + sorting" thread where I talk
>> about primitives that would allow massively parallel merge joins,
>> rather than 2 or 3 way parallel.
>
> Could you give me the subject of the thread? Or important message
> of that.
I think that would be the following thread:
* parallelism and sorting *
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYh4zsQMgqiyra7zO1RBBvG1qHn1fJT5q0Fpw+Q0xAjrg@mail.gmail.com
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marco Nenciarini | 2015-12-14 08:59:15 | Re: Uninterruptible slow geo_ops.c |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-12-14 08:34:21 | Re: W-TinyLfu for cache eviction |