From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor |
Date: | 2006-04-11 17:28:20 |
Message-ID: | 87d5foja2z.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I think it would be useful to think about exactly what type of
> query/activity we are looking to improve the performance on. That way we
> can understand the benefit of this proposal and take some baseline
> measurements to analyse what is happening for those cases.
I find the focus on sequential scans, index scans, etc. quite odd when you're
discussing parallel query processing. The whole goal of parallel query
processing is to bring more *cpu* to bear on the problem. That's going to be
most relevant when you're cpu bound, not i/o bound.
The queries I would expect to be helped most by parallel query processing are
queries that involve sorting. For example, a big merge join with two sorts on
either side could perform the two sorts simultaneously. If they provide the
results of the final pass to a third thread it can execute the merge join and
the rest of the query plan while the sorts are still executing on two other
processors.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Myron Scott | 2006-04-11 17:49:22 | Re: Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-04-11 17:20:19 | Re: Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Myron Scott | 2006-04-11 17:49:22 | Re: Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-04-11 17:20:19 | Re: Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor |