Re: Sorting Improvements for 8.4 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Gregory Stark
Subject Re: Sorting Improvements for 8.4
Date
Msg-id 87lk7mrhu9.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sorting Improvements for 8.4  (Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Brian Hurt" <bhurt@janestcapital.com> writes:

> 3) It's possible to perform the sort lazily.  You have the initial O(N) pass
> over the list, but then each block is only O(log N) cost.  If it's likely that
> only the first part of the result is needed, then much of the work can be
> avoided.

Now that's a *fascinating* idea. I'm having trouble coming up with a really
killer use case for it since the bounded heap sort takes care of many cases
where it would seem to apply. But it seems rally promising.

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Negative LIMIT and OFFSET?
Next
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: binary decode