Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAvne-0001Hc-36 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:12:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAvnd-0002wD-IT for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:12:57 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAvnc-0002w7-88 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:12:56 +0000 Received: from toroondcbmts05.bellnexxia.net ([207.236.237.39] helo=toroondcbmts05-srv.bellnexxia.net) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UAvna-0000nL-6V for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 05:12:55 +0000 Received: from toip59-bus.srvr.bell.ca ([67.69.240.186]) by toroondcbmts05-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20130228051251.IBII26520.toroondcbmts05-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip59-bus.srvr.bell.ca>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:12:51 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAJjlLlFGMVM9/2dsb2JhbABFgkO/bHsWc4IgAQUIAiNMDQMCBgMECTkZPgIEHgWIA7kHiE2PFAeDQAOBIYdJhS2OQ4pRgyY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,753,1355115600"; d="scan'208,217";a="51759189" Received: from unknown (HELO CAPRICA) ([70.49.83.61]) by toip59-bus.srvr.bell.ca with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2013 00:12:50 -0500 From: "Carlo Stonebanks" To: "'Jeff Janes'" Cc: References: <005701ce0fb5$6f841f30$4e8c5d90$@sympatico.ca> <001501ce1054$7b518380$71f48a80$@sympatico.ca> <006201ce1125$2c554150$84ffc3f0$@sympatico.ca> <009001ce1137$f9c31bf0$ed4953d0$@sympatico.ca> <010601ce137a$266b7f00$73427d00$@sympatico.ca> <01a601ce1482$07142db0$153c8910$@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Are bitmap index scans slow to start? Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:12:48 -0500 Message-ID: <024301ce1572$3fea5560$bfbf0020$@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0244_01CE1548.57149B80" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHaXprYpEPEIaXdLmMZOCaAwfiQhwMAB23aAo8fOP4CRcCoxQGZrFXnAfFz5MABrTXs1wKK8TywAYGHuvoCTeGWYQE4hpdOAWxAXkOXxcOBsA== Content-Language: en-ca X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0244_01CE1548.57149B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit << I had thought you were saying that any one ETL procedure into one database used 14 concurrent threads. But really, each ETL procedure is single-threaded, and there can be up to 5 (or theoretically up to 14) of them running at a time into different databases? >> Sorry, just caught this. Your first interpretation was correct. Each DB runs an ETL that can have up to 14 concurrent threads. I don't think the number should be that high, but the engineering team insists the load time is better than fewer threads running faster. ------=_NextPart_000_0244_01CE1548.57149B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<< 

I = had thought you were saying that any one ETL procedure into one database = used 14 concurrent threads.  But really, each ETL procedure is = single-threaded, and there can be up to 5 (or theoretically up to 14) of = them running at a time into different databases?
>>

 

Sorry, just caught this.

 

Your first interpretation was correct. Each DB runs an ETL that can = have up to 14 concurrent threads. I don’t think the number should = be that high, but the engineering team insists the load time is better = than fewer threads running = faster.

------=_NextPart_000_0244_01CE1548.57149B80--