From: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why we have tuplestore and tuplesort? |
Date: | 2009-08-15 20:50:52 |
Message-ID: | e08cc0400908151350w72a45ed2jc1ae16f3123d6b5a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/8/16 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2009/8/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Looking for git/cvs log a bit, tuplesort was already there since 1999
>>> while tuplestore was introduced around 2000 for materialized node. Why
>>> then was tuplestore invented as a new feature instead of extending
>>> tuplesort? Can't we unit them now?
>>
>> I think they'd be unmaintainable if merged. Each one is complicated
>> enough as-is, and they have different concerns and different use-cases
>> to optimize for. Moreover it's not clear that merging them would buy us
>> much --- saving one copy step doesn't excite me, even if it actually
>> came out to be true which I'm unconvinced about.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>
> I agree it would be unmaintainable. However it sounds like there's no
> crystal clear reason the two are separated. Before tuplestore got
> multiple read pointers it was quite similar to tuplestore except
oops, "similar to tuplesort"
> performing sort so I can imagine allowing tuplesort to have multiple
> read pointers.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Hitoshi Harada
>
--
Hitoshi Harada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-08-15 21:34:04 | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |
Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2009-08-15 20:49:25 | Re: Why we have tuplestore and tuplesort? |