Re: Polyphase Merge

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Polyphase Merge
Date: 2008-01-21 21:13:32
Message-ID: 18768.1200950012@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> It's really up to you to find answers to these questions, especially
> the first one. Once you've designed an efficient algorithm then the
> second point (which I'm interpreting as how you'd go about changing
> tuplestore(?) so that things can be read in reverse order) should
> just drop out as an implementation detail :) I'm guessing you'll
> end up not reading the store in reverse order but arranging things
> differently---it'll be interesting to see.

I agree --- having to read the run back from external storage, only to
write it out again with no further useful work done on it, sounds like
a guaranteed loser. To make this work you'll need some kind of ju-jitsu
rearrangement that logically puts the run where it needs to go without
physically moving any data.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-01-21 21:54:06 Strange locking choices in pg_shdepend.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-01-21 20:49:32 Re: [GENERAL] setof record "out" syntax and returning records