Re: Compression and on-disk sorting

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
Date: 2006-05-16 22:48:33
Message-ID: 12911.1147819713@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Not seek, mark/restore. As the code describes, sometimes you go back a
> tuple. The primary reason I think is for the final pass, a merge sort
> might read the tuples multiple times, so it needs to support it there.

However it'd be possible to tell logtape in advance whether a particular
tape needs to support that, and only apply compression when not; it
would work all the time for intermediate merge passes, and with the
recent executor changes to pass down you-need-to-support-mark flags,
it'd work for the output pass in a lot of cases too.

If you're just trying to get some quick and dirty numbers: do
compression, replace Seek/Tell with PANICs, and only test on plain
sorts no joins ;-)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-16 23:18:48 Re: Mention pg_dump version portability
Previous Message Greg Stark 2006-05-16 22:48:25 Re: Compression and on-disk sorting

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Piskorski 2006-05-17 00:14:34 Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
Previous Message Greg Stark 2006-05-16 22:48:25 Re: Compression and on-disk sorting