| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | mac_man2005(at)hotmail(dot)it |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Replacement Selection |
| Date: | 2007-11-26 18:31:01 |
| Message-ID: | 24867.1196101861@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
<mac_man2005(at)hotmail(dot)it> writes:
> 3) Start run generation. As for this phase, I see PostgreSQL code (as Knuth
> algorithm) marks elements belonging to runs in otder to know which run they
> belong to and to know when the current heap has finished building the
> current run. I don't memorize this kind of info. I just output from heap to
> run all of the elements going into the current run. The elements supposed to
> go into the next run (I call them "dead records") are still stored into main
> memory, but as leaves of the heap. This implies reducing the heap size and
> so heapifying a smaller number of elements each time I get a dead record
> (it's not necessary to sort dead records). When the heap size is zero a new
> run is created heapifying all the dead records currently present into main
> memory.
Why would this be an improvement over Knuth? AFAICS you can't generate
longer runs this way, and it's not saving any time --- in fact it's
costing time, because re-heapifying adds a lot of new comparisons.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mac_man2005 | 2007-11-26 18:44:37 | Re: Replacement Selection |
| Previous Message | mac_man2005 | 2007-11-26 18:08:55 | Re: Replacement Selection |