[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Stone) writes: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 01:21:23PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote: >>A naive read on this is that you might start with one backend process, >>which then spawns 16 more. Each of those backends is scanning through >>one of those 16 files; they then throw relevant tuples into shared >>memory to be aggregated/joined by the central one. > > Of course, table scanning is going to be IO limited in most cases, and > having every query spawn 16 independent IO threads is likely to slow > things down in more cases than it speeds them up. It could work if you > have a bunch of storage devices, but at that point it's probably > easier and more direct to implement a clustered approach.
All stipulated, yes. It obviously wouldn't be terribly useful to scan more aggressively than I/O bandwidth can support. The point is that this is one of the kinds of places where concurrent processing could do some good... -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;; http://cbbrowne.com/info/spiritual.html Save the whales. Collect the whole set. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
