From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |
Date: | 2015-11-20 22:44:54 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQDQuiN0NbaARD1QQ4te6hor7GVVAALiKasH9+3GjJV=g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> I would like more opinions on the multipass_warning message. I can
>> write a patch that creates a new system view, detailing how sort were
>> completed, if there is demand.
>
> I think a warning message is a terrible idea, and a system view is a
> needless complication. If the patch is as fast or faster than what we
> have now in all cases, then we should adopt it (assuming it's also
> correct and well-commented and all that other good stuff). If it's
> not, then we need to analyze the cases where it's slower and decide
> whether they are significant enough to care about.
Maybe I was mistaken to link the idea to this patch, but I think it
(or something involving a view) is a good idea. I linked it to the
patch because the patch makes it slightly more important than before.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-11-20 22:58:52 | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-11-20 21:50:17 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |