Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZRzX_HB_yJ7phou4sS07MRgKWXPJxJLxSUiFjEztHa_4Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> Well, maybe, but the whole idea behind replacement_sort_tuples (by
> which I mean the continued occasional use of replacement selection by
> Postgres) was that we hope to avoid a merge step *entirely*. This new
> merge shift down heap patch could make the merge step so cheap as to
> be next to free anyway (in the even of presorted input)

I mean: Cheaper than just processing the tuples to return to caller
without comparisons/merging (within the TSS_SORTEDONTAPE path). I do
not mean free in an absolute sense, of course.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: patch: function xmltable