Re: Threaded Sorting

scott.marlowe wrote:
> > We haven't thought about it yet because there are too many buggy thread
> > implementations. We are probably just now getting to a point where we
> > can consider it. However, lots of databases have moved to threads for
> > all sorts of things and ended up with a royal mess of code. Threads
> > can only improve things in a few areas of the backend so it would be
> > nice if we could limit the exposure to threads to those areas; sorting
> > could certainly be one of them, but frankly, I think disk I/O is our
> > limiting factore there. I would be interested to see some tests that
> > showed otherwise.
>
> Wouldn't the type of disk subsystem really make a big difference here?
>
> With a couple of U160 cards and a dozen 15krpm hard drives, I would
> imagine I/O would no longer be as much of an issue as a single drive
> system would be.
>
> It seems like sometimes we consider these issues more from the one or two
> SCSI drives perspective insted of the big box o drives perspective.

Yes, it is mostly for non-RAID drives, but also, sometimes single drives
can be faster. When you have a drive array, it isn't as easy to hit
each drive and keep it running sequentially. Of course, I don't have
any hard numbers on that. ;-)

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073