| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PoC: Partial sort |
| Date: | 2016-04-08 19:09:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQDovAivRLeEL6ZC1Fe229j+8ZkwTJ+mFO4=2YRnJe4WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hmm... I'm not completely agree with that. In typical usage partial sort
> should definitely use quicksort. However, fallback to other sort methods is
> very useful. Decision of partial sort usage is made by planner. But
> planner makes mistakes. For example, our HashAggregate is purely in-memory.
> In the case of planner mistake it causes OOM. I met such situation in
> production and not once. This is why I'd like partial sort to have graceful
> degradation for such cases.
I think that this should be moved to the next CF, unless a committer
wants to pick it up today.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-04-08 19:13:21 | Re: raw output from copy |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-08 19:03:49 | Re: multivariate statistics v14 |