2010/10/1 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/9/26 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> This patch needs a few work - can share a compare functionality with
>>> tuplesort.c, but I would to verify a concept now.
>> Sorry for delay. I read the patch and it seems the result is sane. For
>> window function calls, I agree that the current tuplesort is not
>> enough to implement median functions and the patch introduces its own
>> memsort mechanism, although memsort has too much copied from
>> tuplesort. It looks to me not so difficult to modify the existing
>> tuplesort to guarantee staying in memory always if an option to do so
>> is specified from caller. I think that option can be used by other
>> cases in the core code.
> If this patch tries to force the entire sort to happen in memory,
> it is not committable. What will happen when you get a lot of data?
> You need to be working on a variant that will work anyway, not working
> on an unacceptable lobotomization of the main sort code.
What about array_agg()? Doesn't it exceed memory even if the huge data come in?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-10-01 14:15:30|
|Subject: Re: git diff --patience|
|Previous:||From: Gurjeet Singh||Date: 2010-10-01 14:09:27|
|Subject: Re: PG-Git usernames|
pgsql-rrreviewers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-10-01 14:43:47|
|Subject: Re: wip: functions median and percentile |
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2010-10-01 13:19:57|
|Subject: Re: wip: functions median and percentile|