From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Teach tuplesort.c about "top N" sorting, in which only the first |
Date: | 2007-05-04 18:44:07 |
Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10705041144g79a85724x67e69f6f9f5fde51@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 5/4/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> -> Sort (cost=840.19..865.19 rows=10000 width=244) (actual time=140.492..140.880 rows=100 loops=1 method=top-N)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sort Key: fivethous
> Another possibility, which could be wedged into explain.c slightly more
> easily, is to append "Method: top-N" or some such to the Sort Key line,
> but I'm not sure that that would look nice.
Is it possible to have something like Sort (disk|top-N|memory) instead
of Sort? I'm really not sure it's a good idea to break the (actual
time=0.074..51.849 rows=10000 loops=1) output we have for every node.
It's easier to read the output when it's consistent.
If not, append it at the end of the Sort Key line is better IMHO.
--
Guillaume
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2007-05-04 18:47:39 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Teach tuplesort.c about "top N" sorting, in which only the first |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-04 18:29:27 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Teach tuplesort.c about "top N" sorting, in which only the first |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2007-05-04 18:46:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze progress report |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-05-04 18:38:37 | Re: RETURN QUERY in PL/PgSQL? |