From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
To: Eliot Gable <egable+pgsql-performance@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: B-Heaps
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:10:10 +0300
Message-ID: <4C171942.9060705@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinsmWw4w2m2fyjord30seNfn7Ww1arKew5EttQG@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinsmWw4w2m2fyjord30seNfn7Ww1arKew5EttQG@mail.gmail.com>
On 15/06/10 06:21, Eliot Gable wrote:
> Just curious if this would apply to PostgreSQL:
> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1814327
>
> <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1814327>Now that I've read it, it seems
> like a no-brainer. So, how does PostgreSQL deal with the different latencies
> involved in accessing data on disk for searches / sorts vs. accessing data
> in memory? Is it allocated in a similar way as described in the article such
> that disk access is reduced to a minimum?
I don't think we have any binary heap structures that are large enough
for this to matter. We use a binary heap when merging tapes in the
tuplesort code, for example, but that's tiny.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com, egable+pgsql-performance@gmail.com
Subject: Re: B-Heaps
In-Reply-To: <4C171942.9060705@enterprisedb.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox