Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

From: "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>
To: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
Date: 2005-09-27 17:26:28
Message-ID: 1127841988.8965.3.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 13:15 -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:

> That Btree can be used to generate a physical reordering of the data
> in one pass, but that's the weakest use for it. The more powerful
> uses involve allowing the Btree to persist and using it for more
> efficient re-searches or combining it with other such Btrees (either as
> a step in task distribution across multiple CPUs or as a more efficient
> way to do things like joins by manipulating these Btrees rather than
> the actual records.)

Maybe you could describe some concrete use cases. I can see what you
are getting at, and I can imagine some advantageous uses, but I'd like
to know what you are thinking.

Specifically I'd like to see some cases where this would beat sequential
scan. I'm thinking that in your example of a terabyte table with a
column having only two values, all the queries I can think of would be
better served with a sequential scan.

Perhaps I believe this because you can now buy as much sequential I/O as
you want. Random I/O is the only real savings.

-jwb

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ilia Kantor 2005-09-27 17:30:55 effective SELECT from child tables
Previous Message Ron Peacetree 2005-09-27 17:15:38 Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Everton 2005-09-27 18:01:24 Delphi connection ADO is slow
Previous Message Ron Peacetree 2005-09-27 17:15:38 Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?