On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Given our row-based storage architecture, I can't imagine we'd do
>> anything other than take a row-based approach to this.. I would think
>> we'd do two things: parallelize based on partitioning, and parallelize
>> seqscan's across the individual heap files which are split on a per-1G
>> boundary already. Perhaps we can generalize that and scale it based on
>> the number of available processors and the size of the relation but I
>> could see advantages in matching up with what the kernel thinks are
>> independent files.
> The 1GB idea is interesting. I found in pg_upgrade that file copy would
> just overwhelm the I/O channel, and that doing multiple copies on the
> same device had no win, but those were pure I/O operations --- a
> sequential scan might be enough of a mix of I/O and CPU that parallelism
> might help.
AFAIR, synchroscans were introduced because multiple large sequential
scans were counterproductive (big time).
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2013-01-16 02:40:32|
|Subject: Sequence Access Method WIP|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2013-01-16 02:29:01|
|Subject: Re: Parallel query execution|