From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | mac_man2005(at)hotmail(dot)it, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replacement Selection |
Date: | 2007-11-26 22:55:48 |
Message-ID: | 4980.1196117748@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I guess you would save some comparisons
>> while the heap is shrinking, but it's not at all clear that you'd save
>> more than what it will cost you to re-heapify all the dead records once
>> the run is over.
> This sounded familiar... It sounds a lot like what this CVS log message is
> describing as a mistaken idea:
Wow, I had forgotten all about that; but yeah this sounds exactly like
my first-cut rewrite of PG's sorting back in 1999. I have some vague
memory of having dismissed Knuth's approach as being silly because of
the extra space and (small number of) cycles needed to compare run
numbers in the heap. I hadn't realized that there was an impact on
total number of comparisons required :-(
The discussion from that time period in pgsql-hackers makes it sound
like you need a large test case to notice the problem, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Rief | 2007-11-26 22:56:39 | Table inheritance, unique constraints and foreign key problem |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-11-26 22:53:19 | Re: Locating sharedir in PostgreSQL on Windows |