| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 04:32:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20130116043254.GB369@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
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 | Michael Paquier | 2013-01-16 04:37:28 | Re: Parallel query execution |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-01-16 04:28:18 | Re: Parallel query execution |