On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Mark Wong mark...@gmail.com wrote:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/publications.html
Some of these papers aren't the type of parallelism we're talking
about here, but the ones
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 21:01 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The section (from that same paper) on parallelizing hash joins and
merge-join-over-sort is interesting, and I can definitely imagine
those techniques being a win for us. But I'm not too sure how we'd
know when to apply them - that is,
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Mark Wong mark...@gmail.com wrote:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/publications.html
Some of these papers aren't the type of parallelism we're talking
about here, but the ones that I think are relevant talk mostly about
parallelizing hash based
Hi all,
Sorry for jumping in over 4 months later...
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
This is really a topic for another thread, but at 100,000 feet it
seems to me that the
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
How much does this stuff is dependent on the current state of the
backend?
A whole lot.
Bad news.
Ok that's a far stretch from the question at hand, but would that be
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
dfonta...@hi-media.com wrote:
This is really a topic for another thread, but at 100,000 feet it
seems to me that the hardest question is - how will you decide which
operations to parallelize in the first place? Actually making it
happen is
