Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
Cc: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-09-28 02:05:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think the patch is almost ready to commit, but still
> have some comments for the usability and documentations.
> I hope native English speakers would help improving docs.

I'm checking the latest patch for applying.
I found we actually use maintenance_work_mem for the sort in seqscan+sort
case, but the cost was estimated based on work_mem in the patch. I added
internal cost_sort_with_mem() into costsize.c.

> * Documentation could be a bit more simplified like as
>  "CLUSTER requires twice disk spaces of your original table".
>  The added description seems too difficult for standard users.

I re-ordered some description in the doc. Does it look better?
Comments and suggestions welcome.

Itagaki Takahiro

Attachment: sorted_cluster-20100928.patch
Description: application/octet-stream (30.1 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-09-28 02:52:40
Subject: Re: levenshtein_less_equal (was: multibyte charater set in levenshtein function)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-09-28 01:27:27
Subject: Re: PlaceHolderVars versus join ordering

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group