| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Memory usage during sorting |
| Date: | 2012-03-20 01:08:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HPT0+h6d7E70ATSSTHEzuyiEm2VAR8tJg=gr7wFrWBNPg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There's no real reason why the tuples destined for the next run need
> to be maintained in heap order; we could just store them unordered and
> heapify the whole lot of them when it's time to start the next run.
This sounded familiar....
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-03-20 01:14:09 | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-03-19 21:53:22 | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |