| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
| Cc: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
| Date: | 2010-09-28 02:05:07 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinQsXngAExJOgCeGtLmCvTB8oHSZDOAB5YnKFOE@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think the patch is almost ready to commit, but still
> have some comments for the usability and documentations.
> I hope native English speakers would help improving docs.
I'm checking the latest patch for applying.
I found we actually use maintenance_work_mem for the sort in seqscan+sort
case, but the cost was estimated based on work_mem in the patch. I added
internal cost_sort_with_mem() into costsize.c.
> * Documentation could be a bit more simplified like as
> "CLUSTER requires twice disk spaces of your original table".
> The added description seems too difficult for standard users.
I re-ordered some description in the doc. Does it look better?
Comments and suggestions welcome.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| sorted_cluster-20100928.patch | application/octet-stream | 30.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-28 02:52:40 | Re: levenshtein_less_equal (was: multibyte charater set in levenshtein function) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-28 01:27:27 | Re: PlaceHolderVars versus join ordering |