On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 05:04:05PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Gavin Flower (GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz) wrote:
> > How about being aware of multiple spindles - so if the requested
> > data covers multiple spindles, then data could be extracted in
> > parallel. This may, or may not, involve multiple I/O channels?
> Yes, this should dovetail with partitioning and tablespaces to pick up
> on exactly that.
> I'd rather not have the benefits of parallelism be tied to partitioning if we
> can help it. Hopefully implementing parallelism in core would result in
> something more transparent than that.
We will need a way to know we are not saturating the I/O channel with
random I/O that could have been sequential if it was single-threaded.
Tablespaces give us that info; not sure what else does.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Claudio Freire||Date: 2013-01-17 02:48:16|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED|
|Previous:||From: Claudio Freire||Date: 2013-01-17 02:42:04|
|Subject: Re: Parallel query execution|