w/o reading the URL docs, it sounds suspiciously like "tagged command queueing" for sequential scans.
<pause for comedic effect>
I wonder what the best way to spend $7K for performance improvement might be? ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Jim C. Nasby
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:46 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] Very interesting article about the future of databases
For those who didn't see it on slashdot: http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=293
What's interesting is that PostgreSQL is already working on some of these things. Of note, there's a patch to allow
sequentialscans to 'piggyback' on top of other sequential scans. See the quote "For petabyte-scale databases, the only
solutionmay be to run continuous data scans, with queries piggybacked on top of the scans." on page 4. There's also
beendiscussion about how to more intelligently cost UDF's, something also mentioned on page 4.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly