| From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Ordered Append Node |
| Date: | 2007-11-23 09:18:03 |
| Message-ID: | 47469ACB.9090704@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I think you need it because there are potentially many input types.
>
> Eh, "tapes".
Aha..
>> Given the partitioning case, I'd expect all rows to have an equal
>> tuple descriptor. Maybe this is a matter of what to optimize, then?
>>
>> Could you elaborate on what use case you have in mind?
>
> You need a priority queue to figure out from which tape (partition)
> you need to remove the next tuple.
And why do you need lots of heap memory to do that? Anything wrong with
the zipper approach I've outlined upthread?
Am I missing something?
Regards
Markus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-11-23 09:28:34 | Re: Ordered Append Node |
| Previous Message | Florian Weimer | 2007-11-23 09:05:49 | Re: Ordered Append Node |