From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Date: | 2006-05-16 22:48:33 |
Message-ID: | 12911.1147819713@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Not seek, mark/restore. As the code describes, sometimes you go back a
> tuple. The primary reason I think is for the final pass, a merge sort
> might read the tuples multiple times, so it needs to support it there.
However it'd be possible to tell logtape in advance whether a particular
tape needs to support that, and only apply compression when not; it
would work all the time for intermediate merge passes, and with the
recent executor changes to pass down you-need-to-support-mark flags,
it'd work for the output pass in a lot of cases too.
If you're just trying to get some quick and dirty numbers: do
compression, replace Seek/Tell with PANICs, and only test on plain
sorts no joins ;-)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-16 23:18:48 | Re: Mention pg_dump version portability |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2006-05-16 22:48:25 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Piskorski | 2006-05-17 00:14:34 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2006-05-16 22:48:25 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |