From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Steven M. Wheeler <swheeler@sabre.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@hub.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] Questions about vacuum analyze
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:45:13 -0400
Message-ID: <8117.939656713@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <199910111507.LAA29115@candle.pha.pa.us>
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> The thing I liked about the existing algorithm is that it did the
> sorting without the page faulting/thrashing caused by many sort
> algorithms.
Yes, I think we want to stick with the basic architecture of an
initial replacement-selection filter operating in limited memory,
followed by merge passes. I'm just thinking about how to reduce
the amount of disk space chewed up by intermediate merge results...
regards, tom lane
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, maillist@candle.pha.pa.us, swheeler@sabre.com, pgsql-sql@hub.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] Questions about vacuum analyze
In-Reply-To: <8117.939656713@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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