Re: Postgres vs other Postgres based MPP implementations - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ondrej Ivanič
Subject Re: Postgres vs other Postgres based MPP implementations
Date
Msg-id CAM6mie+zfGvG3i8ERfsJ4JP+a_9vOvNTTHxHWcP+sHbszpmtyA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres vs other Postgres based MPP implementations  (Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>)
List pgsql-general
Hi,

> it's a lot of work and right now the only people
> who've done that work aren't giving it away for free - or not in any form
> that can be integrated into PostgreSQL without removing other capabilities
> other users need.

One MPP vendor implemented columnar store in roughly six months --
lot's of work is involved there!. Anyway, all implementation what I
came across took several shortcuts like no updates(append only) or no
foreign keys, ... but it works!

> That's not to say Pg can't improve. It can, and not just by adding column
> store or index-structured table support. Improved parallelism capabilities
> are needed in Pg

I see most benefits coming from parallelism: 12hr query can finish in
2hr if sliced properly


--
Ondrej Ivanic
(ondrej.ivanic@gmail.com)

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres vs other Postgres based MPP implementations
Next
From: Thomas Markus
Date:
Subject: Re: Grouping logs by ip and time