Re: Threaded Sorting

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Curtis Faith" <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Threaded Sorting
Date: 2002-10-06 00:48:31
Message-ID: 6657.1033865311@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Curtis Faith" <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com> writes:
> What about splitting out parsing, optimization and plan generation from
> execution and having a separate pool of exececutor processes.

> As an optimizer finished with a query plan it would initiate execution
> by grabbing an executor from a pool and passing it the plan.

So different executors would potentially handle the queries from a
single transaction? How will you deal with pushing transaction-local
state from one to the other?

Even if you restrict it to switching at transaction boundaries, you
still have session-local state (at minimum user ID and SET settings)
to worry about.

Being able to apply multiple CPUs to a single query is attractive,
but I've not yet seen schemes for it that don't look like the extra
CPU power would be chewed up in overhead :-(.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2002-10-06 05:37:31 Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-10-06 00:25:35 Re: New lock types