Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

What are the functions (for example) are available/not available to get transformed to GPU source code? What is the factor value u consider to get multiplied with actual cost for CPU? For example, default cpu_tuple_cost is 0.01. Consider, for example, if the cost=0.00..458.00 for seq scan, how

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Mark Anns wrote: > > Can u explain this statement "check whether the scan qualifier can be > > executable on GPU device" > > > > What are the scan qualifiers? > > > > How to determine whether they are device executable or not? > > > >

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

> Can u explain this statement "check whether the scan qualifier can be > executable on GPU device" > > What are the scan qualifiers? > SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE x > 20 AND memo LIKE '%abc%'; This is scan qualifier. > How to

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

"fraction of the cost of executing the same portion of the plan using the traditional CPU processing" Can u explain about this fraction in detail? I need the clarifications for query plan tree also. Executing a query in CPU is different from executing the same in GPU. So the plan also differs.

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Mark Anns wrote: > Can u explain this statement "check whether the scan qualifier can > be executable on GPU device" > > What are the scan qualifiers? > > How to determine whether they are device executable or not? > > The cost estimates

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

Can u explain this statement "check whether the scan qualifier can be executable on GPU device" What are the scan qualifiers? How to determine whether they are device executable or not? The cost estimates are entirely based on number of rows and type of scan. Then it will be same for both CPU

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

Can u explain this statement "check whether the scan qualifier can be executable on GPU device" What are the scan qualifiers? How to determine whether they are device executable or not? -- View this message in context:

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

Thanks for your response. But that planning for a query execution in GPU is different from planning a query execution in CPU right? Even considering cost calculation, cost for executing a query in GPU is different from cost for executing a query in CPU. How this cost calculation for GPU occurs?

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

Yeah I think Kouhei Kaigai is one of the Contributors. So expecting his reply. And thanks for your kind responses -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/How-the-Planner-in-PGStrom-differs-from-PostgreSQL-tp5929724p5930373.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

Mark Anns wrote: > How the planning factors of PGStrom differs from planning factos of > PostgreSQL? I don't know what exactly you mean by a "planning factor". What PGStrom does is estimate the cost of the GPU operations and attach these costs to a custom scan node which is part of a query plan.

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

On 11/14/2016 9:43 PM, Mark Anns wrote: Thank you so much for your references. How the planning factors of PGStrom differs from planning factos of PostgreSQL? you should probably ask the pgStrom folks this, before your queries, I'd never even heard of it. pgsql-general is primarily for

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

Thank you so much for your references. How the planning factors of PGStrom differs from planning factos of PostgreSQL? -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/How-the-Planner-in-PGStrom-differs-from-PostgreSQL-tp5929724p5930356.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

On 11/14/2016 9:25 PM, Mark Anns wrote: I am just curious about this planning factors in GPU. There can be more than one appropriate paths in query plan tree. How the decision for particular path has been made considering those planning factors? the postgresql planner considers a number of

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

Thank you so much for your kind reply. I am just curious about this planning factors in GPU. There can be more than one appropriate paths in query plan tree. How the decision for particular path has been made considering those planning factors? -- View this message in context:

Re: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

s, > -Original Message- > From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Mark Anns > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 4:12 PM > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: [GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs fr

[GENERAL] How the Planner in PGStrom differs from PostgreSQL?

I am reading through Postgres and PGStrom. Regarding the planning factors, I need some clarifications. Can u help me with that? Planner in Postgres checks for different scan and join methods, and then find the cheapest one and creates a query plan tree. While going for same thing in GPU, the