| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(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: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2018-01-10 22:48:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzn2rXNuL+wu2qCdknPYtkKCXN2bT=YVNBX9LA6JdHB7jw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> I think "one at a time" is not the right way to interpret the affix.
> Rather, a "partitionwise join" is a join done "in the manner of
> partitions", that is, the characteristics of the partitions are
> considered when the join is done.
>
> I'm not defending the "leader-wise" term here, though, because I can't
> make sense of it, regardless of how I interpret the -wise affix.
I've already conceded the point, but fwiw "leader-wise" comes from the
idea of having a leader-wise space following concatenating worker
tapes (who have original/worker-wise space). We must apply an offset
to get from a worker-wise offset to a leader-wise offset.
This made more sense in an earlier version. I overlooked this during
recent self review.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2018-01-10 22:49:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp |
| Previous Message | Nikita Glukhov | 2018-01-10 22:42:51 | Re: jsonpath |