| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | sridhar bamandlapally <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Venkat Balaji <venkat(dot)balaji(at)verse(dot)in>, ashish nauriyal <anauriyal(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Parallel Processing ! |
| Date: | 2012-01-25 20:16:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0zRRWrV5p1U6zAhz=95m3y4Z_9WdYBGwNuKEFX_t1ySnw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I know squat about how to implement this, but I've been considering
> picking the low hanging fruit on that tree and patching up PG to try
> the concept. Many of the items above would require a thread-safe
> execution engine, which may be quite hard to get and have a
> significant performance hit. Some don't, like parallel sort.
This was just discussed on -hackers yesterday -- see thread
'multithreaded query planner'. In short, judging by the comments of
some of the smartest people working on this project, it sounds like
using threads to attack this is not going to happen, ever. Note you
can probably still get parallel execution in other ways, using
processes, shared memory, etc, so I'd consider researching in that
direction.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2012-01-25 20:54:21 | Re: PostgreSQL Parallel Processing ! |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-01-25 16:19:21 | Re: Can lots of small writes badly hamper reads from other tables? |