On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> I believe the threads you're talking about were related to scanning,
> not parallel query. Though, when Qingqing and I were discussing
> parallel query a little over a year ago, I do seem to recall several
> uninformed opinions stating that sequential scans were the only thing
> it could be useful for.
I would imagine sorting a huge set of results would benefit from
multi-threading, because it can be split up into separate tasks. Heck,
Postgres *already* splits sorting up into multiple chunks when the results
to sort are bigger than fit in memory.
This would benefit a lot of multi-table joins, because being able to sort
a table faster would enable merge joins to be used at lower cost. That's
particularly valuable when you're doing a large summary multi-table join
that uses most of the database contents.
Matthew
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. --Donald Knuth
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
