4 ms·
I suppose it depends on what operations you do on your table and what your query stream looks like. It's hard to imagine compute being the bottleneck for most S
by obstinate 10y ago
I suppose it depends on what operations you do on your table and what your query stream looks like. It's hard to imagine compute being the bottleneck for most SQL workloads . . .
- Wheaties466 10y agoOn a Postgresql query before version 9.6 is limited to a single CPU core. Depending on the amount of data it has to query it absolutely can take forever.
- qeternity 10y agoEven now, it's only multicore when doing full table scans (iirc...)
- jasonmp85 10y agoTrue (see here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/parallel-plans.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/parallel-plans.ht... ), but in PostgreSQL 10 there are Parallel Bitmap Heap Scans and Parallel Index Scans (see here: http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2017/03/parallel-query-v2.html http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2017/03/parallel-query-v2.html ).
- user5994461 10y agoConsider a paid database if that's what you need. It's not new that postgre has some limitations compared to the SQL servers/Oracle.
- qeternity 10y agoFor OLAP use cases, CPU is most often a bottleneck...
- user5994461 10y agoDoesn't OLAP implies branching/conditions? GPUs are terrible at evaluating if.
- arnon 10y agoOLAP is implied as a catch-all for analytics in this case
- threeseed 10y agoSQL is an overloaded term these days. There are plenty of SQL queries happening on non-database platforms e.g. Spark, Impala all of which are entirely CPU bound.