| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |
| Date: | 2015-11-19 02:19:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoakcV5FzZwo+WNwbpnXwbY3N+qVs_zKdmE_OYmfivWnkQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> In principle, I have no problem with doing that. Through testing, I
> cannot see any actual upside, though. Perhaps I just missed something.
> Even 8MB is enough to avoid the multipass merge in the event of a
> surprisingly high volume of data (my work laptop is elsewhere, so I
> don't have my notes on this in front of me, but I figured out the
> crossover point for a couple of cases).
I'd be interested in seeing this analysis in some detail.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2015-11-19 02:27:41 | Add scale(numeric) |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2015-11-19 02:04:45 | Re: COPY (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING ..) |