| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sortsupport for text |
| Date: | 2012-06-15 16:22:56 |
| Message-ID: | 28784.1339777376@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 14 June 2012 19:28, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I thought that doubling repeatedly would be overly aggressive in terms
>> of memory usage.
> I fail to understand how this sortsupport buffer fundamentally differs
> from a generic dynamic array abstraction built to contain chars. That
> being the case, I see no reason not to just do what everyone else does
> when expanding dynamic arrays, and no reason why we shouldn't make
> essentially the same time-space trade-off here as others do elsewhere.
I agree with Peter on this one; not only is double-each-time the most
widespread plan, but it is what we do in just about every other place
in Postgres that needs a dynamically expansible buffer. If you do it
randomly differently here, readers of the code will be constantly
stopping to wonder why it's different here and if that's a bug or not.
(And from a performance standpoint, I'm not entirely convinced it's not
a bug, anyway. Worst-case behavior could be pretty bad.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-06-15 16:35:07 | Re: sortsupport for text |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-15 16:18:07 | Re: COMMENT on function's arguments |