Peter Geoghegan writes:
> I know that in practice, even virtual address space is significantly
> less than 64-bits on x86_64, so I think that there should be several
> bits there for the taking, even if the addresses are not aligned
> (although, they are). However, I have no idea
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> 2. We could easily categorize incoming tuples as the come in, into those
>> that have a leading NULL, and others. If we kept them in separate arrays, or
>> perhaps grow memtuples from bottom-up for non-NULLs and from
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> A few things caught my eye while hacking on the latest round of sorting
> patches.
This is how it begins. :-)
> Starting a new thread because these are orthogonal to the things
> discussed on the other threads:
>
> 1.
A few things caught my eye while hacking on the latest round of sorting
patches. Starting a new thread because these are orthogonal to the
things discussed on the other threads:
1. SortTuple.tupindex is not used when the sort fits in memory. If we
also got rid of the isnull1 flag, we could