On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Mark Wong 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 tal
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 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 joins. I think w
Hi all,
Sorry for jumping in over 4 months later...
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
> 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
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
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 really hard, too,
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
> 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 a
>> plausible approach to have pa
