| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-06-29 22:30:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAMp0ubdOoFw9nbNCpgdiM8Nq43LpOXnguAgADvc_RMiO_OeaNA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
[Jumping in without catching up on entire thread. Please let me know
if these questions have already been covered.]
1. Can you change the name to something like ParallelHeapScan?
Parallel Sequential is a contradiction. (I know this is bikeshedding
and I won't protest further if you keep the name.)
2. Where is the speedup coming from? How much of it is CPU and IO
overlapping (i.e. not leaving disk or CPU idle while the other is
working), and how much from the CPU parallelism? I know this is
difficult to answer rigorously, but it would be nice to have some
breakdown even if for a specific machine.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2015-06-29 22:34:12 | Re: pg_file_settings view vs. Windows |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-29 22:12:16 | Re: 9.5 release notes |