On Jan 26, 4:52 pm, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet <rdele...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quote: > > ====================================================================== > > This thread > > http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Multithread-Query-Planner-td5... > > was mentioned in a performance sub-group posting. Give it a read. > > Back? It means, so far as I can see, that PG is toast. It will fall > down to being the cheap and dirty alternative to MySql, which even > has, at least two, multi-threaded engines. DB2 switched it's *nix > engine to threads from processes with release 9.5. Oracle claims it > for releases going back to 7 (I haven't tried to determine which parts > or applications; Larry has bought so many tchochtkes over the > years...). SQL Server is threaded. > > Given that cpu's are breeding threads faster than cores, > PG will fall into irrelevance. > > ====================================================================== > > Source:http://drcoddwasright.blogspot.com/2012/01/dont-thread-on-me.html > > Comments? Author's followup: http://drcoddwasright.blogspot.com/2012/02/damn-you-damocles.html -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
