| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shaun Thomas <shaun(dot)thomas(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
| Date: | 2019-06-25 19:13:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=L8dZNttnvSXvH6NTMWw2T5VsBBC4oU4tLTMV9CoLRvg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:03 AM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> No, I haven't confirmed that it's called less frequently, and I'd be
> extremely surprised if it were given the diff doesn't suggest any
> changes to that at all.
I must have misunderstood, then. I thought that you were suggesting
that that might have happened.
> If you think it's important enough to do so, I can instrument it to
> confirm, but I was mostly wanting to know if there were any other
> plausible explanations, and I think you've provided one: there *are*
> changes in the patch to memory contexts in tuplesort.c, so if memory
> fragmentation is a real concern this patch could definitely notice
> changes in that regard.
Sounds like it's probably fragmentation. That's generally hard to measure.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-06-25 19:59:57 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-06-25 18:50:11 | Don't allocate IndexAmRoutine dynamically? |