4 ms·
Agreed: Table: 426GB, RAM: 256GB, and then he says "and it is clear that having more than 10 workers will not give any significant performance boost". Quite exp
by tempguy9999 7y ago
Agreed: Table: 426GB, RAM: 256GB, and then he says "and it is clear that having more than 10 workers will not give any significant performance boost". Quite expected if it's IO bottlnecked. It doesn't sound like it's about presentation. Maybe I'm missing something.
- londons_explore 7y agoIO bottlenecking shouldn't prevent parallelism helping. One theoretical solution is to have millions of parallel queries, and rather than doing random reads to satisfy them, just read the whole table sequentially. Query latency is high, but throughout is then unconstrained.
- tempguy9999 7y ago> and rather than doing random reads to satisfy them, just read the whole table sequentially OK, good point, I believe this is called a carousel read (spent 5 mins looking for a link, sorry no luck. I know MSSQL does a slightly fancier version of it). I think the original article was unclear in what it was trying for, actual performance or exposition. Edit: could have utterly sworn it was a carousel read, but no cigar. Here it is https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/4472/sql-server-enterprise-advanced-scan-aka-merrygoround-scan/ https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/4472/sql-server-enter...
- nunwuo 7y agoPostgres does this, too; at least to some degree. They call it "synchronized sequential scans".