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
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 |