Re: APR 1.0 released

Any chance of having query parallelization added to TODO? I'm guessing
it will be a huge job, but it's also one of the places where the 'big 3'
have a huge advantage in scalability.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 10:24:05AM -0700, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> >>>>> "CB" == Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
>
> CB> futile discussions ask for it. Notably, on an SMP system, it
> CB> would be a neat idea for complex queries involving joins to
> CB> split themselves so that different parts run in separate
> CB> threads.
>
> You don't really need threads for this. All you need is to have
> multiple backends and use queues to exchange tuples at specific
> points. This is much like the Exchange operator in Volcano.
>
> CB> The other Way, Way Cool part would be for queries that are
> CB> scanning big tables to split the scans into unions of partial
> CB> scans, so that on an 8 CPU box you'd take the "Big 4GB Table"
> CB> and have 8 threads simultaneously scanning different parts of
> CB> it. (And making ARC all the more important :-).)
>
> Again this can be done without threads .. you just need inter-process
> communication.
>
> (BTW, there is at least one commercial system that follows exactly
> this model).
>
> --
> Pip-pip
> Sailesh
> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sailesh
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"