| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, gnuoytr(at)rcn(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: getting the most of out multi-core systems for repeated complex SELECT statements |
| Date: | 2011-02-04 11:33:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4D4BE41C.5020100@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Andy Colson wrote:
> Yes, I agree... for today. If you gaze into 5 years... double the
> core count (but not the speed), double the IO rate. What do you see?
Four more versions of PostgreSQL addressing problems people are having
right now. When we reach the point where parallel query is the only way
around the actual bottlenecks in the software people are running into,
someone will finish parallel query. I am not a fan of speculative
development in advance of real demand for it. There are multiple much
more serious bottlenecks impacting scalability in PostgreSQL that need
to be addressed before this one is #1 on the development priority list
to me.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ivan Voras | 2011-02-04 12:08:23 | Query performance with disabled hashjoin and mergejoin |
| Previous Message | Vitalii Tymchyshyn | 2011-02-04 09:19:13 | Re: How to best use 32 15k.7 300GB drives? |