| From: | Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| 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 09:05:49 |
| Message-ID: | 828x4ppc0i.fsf@mid.bfk.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Markus Schiltknecht:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I think you need it because there are potentially many input types.
Eh, "tapes".
> 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.
--
Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)bfk(dot)de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2007-11-23 09:18:03 | Re: Ordered Append Node |
| Previous Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2007-11-23 08:59:03 | Re: Ordered Append Node |