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 06:00:35 |
Message-ID: | C033B303.1EBBD%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
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.
While technically correct, the practice shows that two-passes is the norm
for the vast majority of cases since 1986:
http://research.microsoft.com/~Gray/papers/TandemTR86.3_FastSort.doc
Square root of the sort set is the memory requirement for a two pass sort.
10M for 10GB of sort set, for instance.
Given the current resource management limitations we live with, you are
correct about multi-pass being necessary, but we should be aware that modern
commercial databases allocate enough memory to provide two-pass external
sorts.
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gourish Singbal | 2006-03-08 07:54:32 | Re: current segfault if autovauum is on |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-03-08 05:29:31 | Re: PostgreSQL Anniversary Summit, Call for Contributions |