Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Hey Alvaro, I was referring to https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ColumnOrientedSTorage . and yes, I'll be at the next fosdem / pgconf.eu for sure. :-) Bert On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Bert wrote: > > > Alvaro, > > You wrote that a wiki page

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Haribabu Kommi wrote: > The performance report is taken on the patch that is WIP columnar storage > on PostgreSQL database. Only the storage part of the code is finished. > To test the performance, we used custom plan to generate the plans > where it can use the columnar storage. This way we ran

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Bert wrote: > Alvaro, > You wrote that a wiki page would be opened regarding this. But I still > cannot find such a page (expect for an old page which hasn't changed in the > last year). Is there already something we can look at? Yeah, I haven't done that yet. I will post here as soon as I get

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Bert wrote: > > Thank you for the performance test. But please not that the patch is 'thrown > away', and will be totally rewritten. I have no idea of the status of the > second / third attempt however. > However, what is interesting is that for

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Hello Haribabu, Thank you for the performance test. But please not that the patch is 'thrown away', and will be totally rewritten. I have no idea of the status of the second / third attempt however. However, what is interesting is that for some queries this patch is already on par with VCI. Which

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So we discussed some of this stuff during the developer meeting in > Brussels and the main conclusion is that we're going to split this up in > multiple independently useful pieces, and write up the general roadmap

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

So we discussed some of this stuff during the developer meeting in Brussels and the main conclusion is that we're going to split this up in multiple independently useful pieces, and write up the general roadmap in the wiki so that we can discuss in detail on-list. I'm marking this as Returned

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> 1. CS API. >> I agree with you that FDW API seems to be not enough to efficiently support >> work with CS. >> At least we need batch insert. >> But may be it is better to extend FDW API rather than creating

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

On 12/28/15 1:15 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Currently within the executor a tuple is a TupleTableSlot which contains one Datum array, which has all the values coming out of the HeapTuple; but for split storage tuples, we will need to have a TupleTableSlot that has multiple "Datum arrays" (in a

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > 3. Transpose of data and role of CS. > Let's look once again on Quote example above. Data is received in time > ascending order. But most queries require grouping it by symbol. So at some > stage we have to "transpose" data. To efficiently append data to timeseries

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: Hi, > May be you know, that I have implemented IMCS (in-memory-columnar-store) as > PostgreSQL extension. > It was not so successful, mostly because people prefer to use standard SQL > rather than using some special functions for accessing columnar storage > (CS). Now

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Hi Alvaro, May be you know, that I have implemented IMCS (in-memory-columnar-store) as PostgreSQL extension. It was not so successful, mostly because people prefer to use standard SQL rather than using some special functions for accessing columnar storage (CS). Now I am thinking about second

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> > Could we get this rebased past the merge of the parallel execution commits? >> >> +1. Alvaro, Tomas, Simon,

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > Could we get this rebased past the merge of the parallel execution commits? +1. Alvaro, Tomas, Simon, what are the next plans with those patches? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > > Could we get this rebased past the merge of the parallel execution commits? > > +1. Alvaro, Tomas, Simon, what are the next plans with those patches? Yeah, I've been working intermittently on

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

Could we get this rebased past the merge of the parallel execution commits? Thanks, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] On columnar storage (2)

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > As discussed in > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150611230316.gm133...@postgresql.org > we've been working on implementing columnar storage for Postgres. > Here's some initial code to show our general idea,