3 ms·
Neat. Postgres has always had a kick-ass I/O layer - particularly on ext4. I think showing Q2 and Q11 numbers would've been great, because for something like T
by gopalv 12y ago
Neat. Postgres has always had a kick-ass I/O layer - particularly on ext4.
I think showing Q2 and Q11 numbers would've been great, because for something like Tez, this is how those plans look in Hive (before the cost-based optimizer work)
http://people.apache.org/~gopalv/tpch-plans/q2_minimum_cost_supplier.svg http://people.apache.org/~gopalv/tpch-plans/q2_minimum_cost_...
http://people.apache.org/~gopalv/tpch-plans/q11_important_stock.svg http://people.apache.org/~gopalv/tpch-plans/q11_important_st...
Postgres's query planner should shine for those.
- getsat 12y agoYou've seen better performance on ext4 than XFS? The opposite has been my experience (mainly on 1tb data across 100 million rows, 20,000 queries/sec). btrfs + compression was 5x faster than XFS, but btrfs has nasty kernel deadlock bugs when the disk is almost full.