From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |
Date: | 2016-04-07 22:23:23 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSh2Z9rOte4oh3Qi-zPVa6wEkpbncp83177tVR7byefmg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I prefer units of tuples, with the GUC itself therefore being
> unitless. I suggest we call the parameter replacement_sort_threshold
> and document that (1) the ideal value may depend on the amount of CPU
> cache available to running processes, with more cache implying higher
> values; and (2) the ideal value may depend somewhat on the input data,
> with more correlation implying higher values. And then pick some
> value that you think is likely to work well for most people and call
> it good.
I really don't want to bikeshed about this, but I must ask: if the
name of the GUC must include the word "threshold", shouldn't it be
called quicksort_threshold?
My dictionary defines threshold as "any place or point of entering or
beginning". But this GUC does not govern where replacement selection
begins; it governs where it ends.
How do you feel about replacement_sort_tuples? We already use the word
"tuple" in the names of GUCs.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-04-07 22:33:06 | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-07 22:23:02 | Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel |