| From: | Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com |
| Subject: | About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
| Date: | 2010-01-15 11:45:24 |
| Message-ID: | 42957.48433.qm@web29016.mail.ird.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I read the thread "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg01371.php .
I would like to try/integrate that patch as we use CLUSTER a lot on our system.
I was going to try to add the proper cost_index/cost_sort calls to decide which "path" should be executed, as in:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-09/msg00517.php
I don't think it will be easy without help... I'll ask here a lot I'm afraid...
About that patch:
1) would it be possible to use the tuplesort_*tupleslot set of functions instead of writing new ones for HeapTuple? That is: is it that difficult/impossible/nonsense to construct TupleTableSlot from HeapTuple and use those?
2) The patch doesn't check "HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum" before passing it to tuplesort_putrawtuple: would it be reasonable to check the "isdead" flag before calling tuplesort_putrawtuple for each tuple?
Sorry if I talked nonsense...
Leonardo
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-15 12:05:32 | Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-15 11:28:05 | Re: New XLOG record indicating WAL-skipping |