On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 05:04:05PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Gavin Flower (gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz) wrote: > > How about being aware of multiple spindles - so if the requested > > data covers multiple spindles, then data could be extracted in > > parallel. This may, or may not, involve multiple I/O channels? > > Yes, this should dovetail with partitioning and tablespaces to pick up > on exactly that. > > > I'd rather not have the benefits of parallelism be tied to partitioning if we > can help it. Hopefully implementing parallelism in core would result in > something more transparent than that.
We will need a way to know we are not saturating the I/O channel with random I/O that could have been sequential if it was single-threaded. Tablespaces give us that info; not sure what else does. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
