From: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: On columnar storage (2) |
Date: | 2016-03-03 05:07:25 |
Message-ID: | CAJrrPGcuCvfKcvYACRcTbkJS2Ym87YW-2JEo1QvuOR4LOfm-6w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> So we discussed some of this stuff during the developer meeting in
> Brussels and the main conclusion is that we're going to split this up in
> multiple independently useful pieces, and write up the general roadmap
> in the wiki so that we can discuss in detail on-list.
>
> I'm marking this as Returned with Feedback now.
>
> Thanks everybody,
Here I attached the DBT-3 performance report that is measured on the
prototype patch
that is written for columnar storage as I mentioned in my earlier mail
with WOS and ROS
design.
Currently to measure the benefits of this design, we did the following changes,
1. Created the columnar storage index similar like other index methods
2. Used custom plan to generate the plan that can use the columnar storage
3. Optimized parallelism to use the columnar storage
The code is not fully ready yet, I posted the performance results to
get a view from
community, whether this approach is really beneficial?
I will provide the full details of the design and WIP patches later.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
DBT3_performance_vci_community.xls | application/vnd.ms-excel | 35.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-03-03 05:08:07 | Re: Re: PATCH: Split stats file per database WAS: autovacuum stress-testing our system |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-03 05:04:24 | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |