Re: Parallel Sort

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Parallel Sort
Date: 2013-05-24 18:13:21
Message-ID: 519FADC1.4050908@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/13/13 9:28 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> It would be great if one client session could take advantage of multiple CPU
> cores. EnterpriseDB wishes to start the trek into this problem space for 9.4
> by implementing parallel internal (i.e. not spilling to disk) sort. This
> touches on a notable subset of the infrastructure components we'll need for
> parallel general query. My intent is to map out the key design topics, hear
> about critical topics I hadn't considered, and solicit feedback on the quality
> of the high-level plan. Full designs for key pieces will come later.

Have you considered GPU-based sorting? I know there's been discussion in the past.

To me, the biggest advantage of GPU sorting is that most of the concerns you've laid out go away; a backend that needs to sort just throws data at the GPU to do the actual sorting; all the MVCC issues and what not remain within the scope of a single backend.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2013-05-24 18:24:17 Re: WAL segments (names) not in a sequence
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2013-05-24 18:09:57 Re: visibilitymap_set and checksums