| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| 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 14:05:39 |
| Message-ID: | 50F6B3B3.8080505@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2013-01-16 14:10:54 | Re: CF3+4 |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2013-01-16 14:04:27 | Re: pg_dump transaction's read-only mode |