Re: Read/Write block sizes

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Read/Write block sizes
Date: 2005-08-24 20:57:44
Message-ID: 20050824205744.GX96732@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:12:22PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> Everyone involved in development seems to me to have a reasonably keen
> understanding as to what the potential benefits of threading are; the
> value is that there fall out plenty of opportunities to parallelize
> the evaluation of portions of queries. Alas, it wouldn't be until
> *after* all the effort goes in that we would get any idea as to what
> kinds of speedups this would provide.

My understanding is that the original suggestion was to use threads
within individual backends to allow for parallel query execution, not
swiching to a completely thread-based model.

In any case, there are other ways to enable parallelism without using
threads, such as handing actual query execution off to a set of
processes.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alan Stange 2005-08-24 21:09:04 Re: Caching by Postgres
Previous Message Mark Fox 2005-08-24 20:43:51 Performance indexing of a simple query