| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Miroslav Bendik <miroslav(dot)bendik(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Incremental sort for access method with ordered scan support (amcanorderbyop) |
| Date: | 2023-04-20 21:42:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrqNBGmbw3inaVqFLc9ttoNcDtFjUyNOYqwNmrD3xsyzg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 at 18:46, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 6:38 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> That function is pretty new and was exactly added so we didn't have to
>> write list_truncate(list_copy(...), n) anymore. That gets pretty
>> wasteful when the input List is long and we only need a small portion
>> of it.
>
> I searched the codes and found some other places where the manipulation
> of lists can be improved in a similar way.
I'd be happy to discuss our thought about List inefficiencies, but I
think to be fair to Miroslav, we should do that somewhere else. The
list_copy_head() discussion was directly related to his patch due to
the list of list_truncate(list_copy(..), ..). The other things you've
mentioned are not. Feel free to start a thread and copy me in.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-04-20 22:04:34 | Re: New committers: Nathan Bossart, Amit Langote, Masahiko Sawada |
| Previous Message | Ranier Vilela | 2023-04-20 21:33:20 | Re: Incremental sort for access method with ordered scan support (amcanorderbyop) |