X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92854DA430 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:25:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70073-02 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:25:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC92DA418 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:25:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j96KPB9e025401; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:25:11 -0400 (EDT) To: Martijn van Oosterhout Cc: Ron Peacetree , "Jonah H. Harris" , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? In-reply-to: <20051006201447.GG10127@svana.org> References: <138872.1128556455518.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20051006165725.GF10127@svana.org> <25130.1128628658@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20051006201447.GG10127@svana.org> Comments: In-reply-to Martijn van Oosterhout message dated "Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:14:47 +0200" Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:25:11 -0400 Message-ID: <25400.1128630311@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/129 X-Sequence-Number: 14897 Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > Are we awfully worried about people still using 2.0 kernels? And it > would replace two calls with three in the worst case, we currently > lseek before every read. That's utterly false. regards, tom lane