Re: Merge algorithms for large numbers of "tapes"

From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Merge algorithms for large numbers of "tapes"
Date: 2006-03-10 00:08:23
Message-ID: C0360377.1EE36%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dann,

On 3/9/06 3:56 PM, "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> wrote:

> Two pass does not require sqrt(total) memory. This figure is clearly
> wrong.

Clearly you haven't read the paper I posted previously in this thread from
1986 written by Jim Grey at Tandem.

- Luke

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2006-03-10 00:10:02 Re: Proposal for SYNONYMS
Previous Message Luke Lonergan 2006-03-10 00:07:05 Re: Merge algorithms for large numbers of "tapes"