Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, if we get a huge performance increase, what's wrong with:
> if [ sqrt(est(total)) <=3D work_mem ]; then
> two-pass-sort();
> else
> tape-sort();
> fi
> ?
Possibly nothing. However, from an algorithmic point of view the
CVS-tip code *is* two-pass-sort, given adequate work_mem and no
requirement for random access. Further, the available profile data
doesn't show any indication that the logtape.c code is eating 3/4ths
of the time (at least not after we fixed the ltsReleaseBlock problem).
So I basically do not believe Luke's assertion that removing logtape.c
is going to produce a 4X speedup. Maybe it's time to produce some code
that we can all test.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
