| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tuplesort merge pre-reading |
| Date: | 2016-09-10 01:21:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpYyBLL07s8zyddo7DSDZfnV1-8huwNwZp7T-UGS58_-4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>>
>> Claudio, if you could also repeat the tests you ran on Peter's patch set on
>> the other thread, with these patches, that'd be nice. These patches are
>> effectively a replacement for
>> 0002-Use-tuplesort-batch-memory-for-randomAccess-sorts.patch. And review
>> would be much appreciated too, of course.
>>
>> Attached are new versions. Compared to last set, they contain a few comment
>> fixes, and a change to the 2nd patch to not allocate tape buffers for tapes
>> that were completely unused.
>
>
> Will do so
It seems both 1 and 1+2 break make check.
Did I misunderstand something? I'm applying the first patch of Peter's
series (cap number of tapes), then your first one (remove prefetch)
and second one (use larger read buffers).
Peter's patch needs some rebasing on top of those but nothing major.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-09-10 01:29:00 | Re: kqueue |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2016-09-10 00:51:08 | Re: Tuplesort merge pre-reading |