| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Aggregate |
| Date: | 2016-03-16 12:29:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYcopSm8=dQiQ89AQams-W_WiStAen2jc_eE77OuxrQag@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Isn't it better to call it as Parallel Aggregate instead of Partial
> Aggregate. Initialy, we have kept Partial for seqscan, but later on we
> changed to Parallel Seq Scan, so I am not able to think why it is better to
> call Partial incase of Aggregates.
I think partial is the right terminology. Unlike a parallel
sequential scan, a partial aggregate isn't parallel-aware and could be
used in contexts having nothing to do with parallelism. It's just
that it outputs transition values instead of a finalized value.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-03-16 12:38:38 | Re: [WIP] speeding up GIN build with parallel workers |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-03-16 12:19:16 | Re: Parallel Aggregate |