|From:||Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>|
|Cc:||Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Rushabh Lathia
> <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Yes, I haven't touched the randomAccess part yet. My initial goal was
> > to incorporate the BufFileSet api's here.
> This is going to need a rebase, due to the commit today to remove
> replacement selection sort. That much should be easy.
Sorry for delay, here is rebase version of patch.
> > Sorry, I didn't get this part. Are you talking about the your patch
> > into OpenTemporaryFileInTablespace(), BufFileUnify() and other changes
> > related to ltsUnify() ? If that's the case, I don't think it require
> > the
> > BufFileSet. Correct me if I am wrong here.
> I thought that you'd have multiple BufFiles, which would be
> multiplexed (much like a single BufFile itself mutiplexes 1GB
> segments), so that logtape.c could still recycle space in the
> randomAccess case. I guess that that's not a goal now.
> > To be frank its too early for me to comment anything in this area. I
> > to study this more closely. As an initial goal I was just focused on
> > understanding the current implementation of the patch and incorporate
> > the BufFileSet APIs.
> Fair enough.
|Next Message||Pavel Golub||2017-10-10 09:55:55||Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold.|
|Previous Message||Konstantin Knizhnik||2017-10-10 08:05:18||Re: Columnar storage support|