Tom, On 3/9/06 3:59 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Let's be fair - I've never asserted that logtape.c is solely responsible for the performance. - Luke ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
