On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 21:43 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was thinking along the lines of having multiple temp files per hash
> > bucket. If you have a tuple that needs to migrate from bucket M to
> > bucket N, you know that it arrived before every tuple that was
> > assigned
> > to bucket N originally, so put such tuples into a separate temp file
> > and process them before the main bucket-N temp file. This might get a
> > little tricky to manage after multiple hash resizings, but in
> > principle
> > it seems doable.
> You can manage that with file naming. Rows moved from batch N to batch M
> would be renamed N.M, so you'd be able to use file ordering to retrieve
> all files for *.M
> That scheme would work for multiple splits too, so that filenames could
> grow yet retain their sort order and final target batch properties.
This seems to lead to a super-geometric progression in the number of
files required, if we assume that the current batch could be
redistributed to all future batches each of which could be similarly
redistributed.
batches
1 no files
2 1 file
4 7 files
8 64 files
16 64,000 files
32 4 billion files ish
So it does seem important whether we demand sorted input or not.
Or at least requires us to provide the executor with a starting point
for the number of batches, so we could manage that.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
