| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Charles Duffy" <charles(dot)duffy(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup() |
| Date: | 2006-07-14 20:12:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4661.1152907964@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The merge sort is here:
> It uses alloca, so we're good here.
Uh ... but it also uses malloc, and potentially a honkin' big malloc at
that (up to a quarter of physical RAM). So I'm worried again.
Anyway, Qingqing's question still needs to be answered: how can a sort
of under 30k items take so long?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-14 20:24:59 | Re: src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES] |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-07-14 19:53:34 | Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup() |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-14 20:24:59 | Re: src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES] |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-07-14 19:53:34 | Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup() |