| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Yuri Levinsky <yuril(at)celltick(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash partitioning. |
| Date: | 2013-06-26 15:04:11 |
| Message-ID: | 51CB02EB.1090505@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/26/2013 04:01 PM, ktm(at)rice(dot)edu wrote:
> I think he is referring to the fact that with parallel query execution,
> multiple partitions can be processed simultaneously instead of serially
> as they are now with the resulting speed increase.
Processing simultaneously is the purpose of parallel query execution,
yes. But I see no reason for that not to work equally well for
unpartitioned tables.
Disk I/O is already pretty well optimized and parallelized, I think.
Trying to parallelize a seq scan on the Postgres side is likely to yield
far inferior performance.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-06-26 15:13:13 | Re: Hash partitioning. |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-06-26 15:02:59 | Re: Computer VARSIZE_ANY(PTR) during debugging |