Interesting, that Stonebraker in his interview said about
parallel query processing
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/qna/0,289202,sid39_gci1025832,00.html
Putting aside Larry Ellison, would you say, anything should have been done differently?
Stonebraker: We made a couple of significan
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 23:58:35 -0500,
Mike Mascari wrote:
>
> Without parallel query, the *only* way to decrease the execution time of
> a single query whose data has been fully cached is to buy the
> latest-and-greatest which is increasing in speed at decreasing rates,
> rather than scali
"Mike Mascari" writes
> "Consider parallel processing a single query" should be moved out from
> under Miscellaneous on the TODO list and re-categorized as the formerly
> existent URGENT feature...
>
Yes, inter/inner-operation of PQO could be an obvious winner in some
situations. For example, in
PostgreSQL has made substantial progress over the years and is
approaching enterprise-quality feature sets. However, one of the major
stopping points for enterprise deployment is lack of parallel query
support. DB2, Oracle, even SQL Server Enterprise Edition all have
parallel query support. A r
