Re: Compression and on-disk sorting - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
Date
Msg-id 20624.1147881444@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Compression and on-disk sorting  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:38:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Note that a large part of the reason for the current logtape.c design
>> is to avoid requiring 2X or more disk space to sort X amount of data.

> Actually, I suspect in most cases it won't matter; I don't think people
> make a habit of trying to sort their entire database. :)

Well, some years ago we used something like 4X space to sort X amount of
data (this is the native behavior of 7-way polyphase merge, it turns out)
and we got yelled at.  Which is what prompted the writing of logtape.c.
Maybe disk space has gotten so cheap since then that it no longer
matters ... but I suspect the nature of DB applications is that people
are always pushing the envelope of what their hardware can do.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: Foreign key column reference ordering and information_schema
Next
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: Foreign key column reference ordering and information_schema