scott.marlowe wrote: > > We haven't thought about it yet because there are too many buggy thread > > implementations. We are probably just now getting to a point where we > > can consider it. However, lots of databases have moved to threads for > > all sorts of things and ended up with a royal mess of code. Threads > > can only improve things in a few areas of the backend so it would be > > nice if we could limit the exposure to threads to those areas; sorting > > could certainly be one of them, but frankly, I think disk I/O is our > > limiting factore there. I would be interested to see some tests that > > showed otherwise. > > Wouldn't the type of disk subsystem really make a big difference here? > > With a couple of U160 cards and a dozen 15krpm hard drives, I would > imagine I/O would no longer be as much of an issue as a single drive > system would be. > > It seems like sometimes we consider these issues more from the one or two > SCSI drives perspective insted of the big box o drives perspective.
Yes, it is mostly for non-RAID drives, but also, sometimes single drives can be faster. When you have a drive array, it isn't as easy to hit each drive and keep it running sequentially. Of course, I don't have any hard numbers on that. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
