From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Parallel query execution |
Date: | 2013-01-16 17:20:24 |
Message-ID: | 20130116172024.GD1099@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:05:39AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 01/15/2013 11:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:28:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>
> >>On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Claudio, Stephen,
> >>
> >> It really seems like the areas where we could get the most "bang for the
> >> buck" in parallelism would be:
> >>
> >> 1. Parallel sort
> >> 2. Parallel aggregation (for commutative aggregates)
> >> 3. Parallel nested loop join (especially for expression joins, like GIS)
> >>
> >>parallel data load? :/
> >We have that in pg_restore, and I thinnk we are getting parallel dump in
> >9.3, right? Unfortunately, I don't see it in the last 9.3 commit-fest.
> >Is it still being worked on?
> >
>
>
> I am about half way through reviewing it. Unfortunately paid work
> take precedence over unpaid work.
Do you think it will make it into 9.3?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-01-16 17:20:50 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-16 17:16:27 | Re: Parallel query execution |