| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is tuplesort_heap_siftup() a misnomer? |
| Date: | 2016-09-08 21:45:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZS3NMT4y-zzDkS0C1vncdsbU=FJiovRQ1ByUjd8sirG7Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, my vote is that it ain't broke and we shouldn't fix it.
To take a step back, what prompted this whole discussion is the patch
that I wrote that shifts down, replacing calls to
tuplesort_heap_siftup() and tuplesort_heap_insert with one new call to
a function I've called tuplesort_heap_root_displace() (today, Claudio
reports that it makes some of his test queries go 25% faster). This
new function shifts down. It's not clear what I'm supposed to say
about that, given the current understanding. So, in a sense, it's
blocking on this.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-08 21:49:01 | Re: Re: GiST optimizing memmoves in gistplacetopage for fixed-size updates [PoC] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-08 21:34:19 | Re: Preventing deadlock on parallel backup |