Re: Memory usage during sorting

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Memory usage during sorting
Date: 2012-03-20 11:44:55
Message-ID: CAM-w4HNQh8b8qw5ziL5pYfCe16iVEKV8DzQffn=7csvpf1GQzg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> That was a long time ago, of course, but I have some vague recollection
> that keeping next-run tuples in the current heap achieves a net savings
> in the total number of comparisons needed to heapify both runs.

Offhand I wonder if this is all because we don't have the O(n) heapify
implemented.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Asif Naeem 2012-03-20 11:46:58 Re: Error trying to compile a simple C trigger
Previous Message Marco Nenciarini 2012-03-20 11:44:39 Re: Error trying to compile a simple C trigger