| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Eliot Gable <egable+pgsql-performance(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: B-Heaps |
| Date: | 2010-06-15 06:10:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4C171942.9060705@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 15/06/10 06:21, Eliot Gable wrote:
> Just curious if this would apply to PostgreSQL:
> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1814327
>
> <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1814327>Now that I've read it, it seems
> like a no-brainer. So, how does PostgreSQL deal with the different latencies
> involved in accessing data on disk for searches / sorts vs. accessing data
> in memory? Is it allocated in a similar way as described in the article such
> that disk access is reduced to a minimum?
I don't think we have any binary heap structures that are large enough
for this to matter. We use a binary heap when merging tapes in the
tuplesort code, for example, but that's tiny.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-06-15 06:40:43 | Re: B-Heaps |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-15 03:57:11 | Re: requested shared memory size overflows size_t |