Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:57 AM, <gnuoytr@xxxxxxx> wrote: Work on the exciting parts people are interested in is blocked behind completely mundane tasks like coordinating how the multiple sessions are going to end up with a consistent view of the database. See "Export snapshots to other sessions" at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ClusterFeatures for details on that one. Parallel query works well for accelerating CPU-bound operations that are executing in RAM. The reality here is that while the feature sounds important, these situations don't actually show up that often. There are exactly zero clients I deal with regularly who would be helped out by this. The ones running web applications whose workloads do fit into memory are more concerned about supporting large numbers of users, not optimizing things for a single one. And the ones who have so much data that single users running large reports would seemingly benefit from this are usually disk-bound instead. The same sort of situation exists with SSDs. Take out the potential users whose data can fit in RAM instead, take out those who can't possibly get an SSD big enough to hold all their stuff anyway, and what's left in the middle is not very many people. In a database context I still haven't found anything better to do with a SSD than to put mid-sized indexes on them, ones a bit too large for RAM but not so big that only regular hard drives can hold them. I would rather strongly disagree with the suggestion that embracing either of these fancy but not really as functional as they appear at first approaches is critical to PostgreSQL's future. They're specialized techniques useful to only a limited number of people. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books |
