On 30 July 2015 at 08:00, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:
> Hmm. You don't really need to merge the in-memory array into the tape, as > you know that all the tuples in the in-memory must come after the tuples > already on the tape. You can just return all the tuples from the tape > first, and then all the tuples from the array. > Agreed This is a good optimization for the common case where tuples are mostly already in order. We could increase the usefulness of this by making UPDATE pick blocks that are close to a tuple's original block, rather than putting them near the end of a relation. > So here's a shorter/different explanation of this optimization: When it's > time to perform the sort, instead of draining the in-memory heap one tuple > at a time to the last tape, you sort the heap with quicksort, and pretend > that the sorted heap belongs to the last tape, after all the other tuples > in the tape. > > Some questions/thoughts on that: > > Isn't that optimization applicable even when you have multiple runs? > Quicksorting the heap and keeping it as an array in memory is surely always > faster than heapsorting and pushing it to the tape. > It's about use of memory. If you have multiple runs on tape, then they will need to be merged and you need memory to do that efficiently. If there are tuples in the last batch still in memory then it can work, but it depends upon how full memory is from the last batch and how many batches there are. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
