Re: Merge algorithms for large numbers of "tapes"

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Merge algorithms for large numbers of "tapes"
Date: 2006-03-09 23:00:06
Message-ID: 28357.1141945206@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> I would only suggest that we replace the existing algorithm with one that
> will work regardless of (reasonable) memory requirements. Perhaps we can
> agree that at least 1MB of RAM for external sorting will always be available
> and proceed from there?

If you can sort indefinitely large amounts of data with 1MB work_mem,
go for it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-03-09 23:22:04 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove Jan Wieck's name from copyrights, and put in standard
Previous Message Luke Lonergan 2006-03-09 22:35:02 Re: Merge algorithms for large numbers of "tapes"