On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 05:25:27PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > As a motivation, here's a somewhat juicy example of the benefits that
> > can be gained (disabled parallelism, results vary too much):
> > SELECT l_linestatus, SUM(l_quantity) FROM lineitem GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 2
> > DESC LIMIT 10 ;
> > non-optimized: 9075.835 ms
> > optimized: 5194.024 ms
> >
> > and that's far from doing all the possible work for that query;
> > especially the batching is far from optimal.
>
> That's pretty great. Let me first just say that I think that your
> broadly have the right idea here, and that it will likely be a big
> area to work on in the years ahead. This may become a big, general
> area with many sub-projects, kind of like parallelism. Also, I think
> it's very much complementary to parallelism.
Agreed. I did put out a blog entry about this in April that has links
to some external projects trying to address this issue:
http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2016.html#April_1_2016
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
