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...
