* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com> writes:
> > I would only suggest that we replace the existing algorithm with one that
> > will work regardless of (reasonable) memory requirements. Perhaps we can
> > agree that at least 1MB of RAM for external sorting will always be available
> > and proceed from there?
>
> If you can sort indefinitely large amounts of data with 1MB work_mem,
> go for it.
It seems you two are talking past each other and I'm at least slightly
confused. So, I'd like to ask for a bit of clarification and perhaps
that will help everyone.
#1: I'm as much a fan of eliminating unnecessary code as anyone
#2: There have been claims of two-pass improving things 400%
#3: Supposedly two-pass requires on the order of sqrt(total) memory
#4: We have planner statistics to estimate size of total
#5: We have a work_mem limitation for a reason
So, if we get a huge performance increase, what's wrong with:
if [ sqrt(est(total)) <= work_mem ]; then two-pass-sort();
else tape-sort();
fi
?
If the performance isn't much different and tape-sort can do it with
less memory then I don't really see any point in removing it.
If the intent is to remove it and then ask for the default work_mem to
be increased- I doubt going about it this way would work very well. :)
Thanks,
Stephen
