From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Merge algorithms for large numbers of "tapes" |
Date: | 2006-03-08 04:18:20 |
Message-ID: | C0339B0C.1EBA6%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yes all of the current best practice external sorts use two passes. A
first to produce the runs, which results in ³S² number of ³files², then a
single merge pass across the runs. At most 1 pass across the S runs is
required to implement the merge.
- Luke
On 3/7/06 8:03 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
>> > Two passes is the state-of-the-practice on external disk sorts.
>
> There is no such thing as a fixed number of passes regardless of
> available memory and size of the data.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2006-03-08 04:47:50 | Re: pg_freespacemap question |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-08 04:03:09 | Re: Merge algorithms for large numbers of "tapes" |