On 30 Jan 2016 8:27 am, "Greg Stark" <st...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2016 11:58 pm, "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It
> > seems pretty easy to construct cases where this technique regresses,
> > and a large percentage of those cases are precisely those where
> > replacement selection would have produced a single run, avoiding the
> > merge step altogether.
> Now that avoiding the merge phase altogether didn't necessarily represent
any actual advantage.
> We don't find out we've avoided the merge phase until the entire run has
been spiked to disk.

Hm, sorry about the phone typos. I thought I proofread it as I went but
obviously not that effectively...

Reply via email to