On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:16:13PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote: > > Actually, I suspect in most cases it won't matter; I don't think people > > make a habit of trying to sort their entire database. :) But we'd want > > to protect for the oddball cases... yech. > > I can make query result sets that are far larger than the database > itself. > > create table fat_table_with_few_tuples(fat_status_id serial primary key, > fat_1 text, fat_2 text); > > create table thin_table_with_many_tuples(fat_status_id integer > references fat_table_with_few_tuples, thin_1 integer, thin_2 integer); > > SELECT * FROM thin_table_with_many_tuples NATURAL JOIN > fat_table_with_few_tuples order by fat_1, thin_1, thin_2, fat_2; > > > I would be asking the folks trying to use PostgreSQL for data > warehousing what their opinion is. A few fact tables in an audit query > could easily result in a very large amount of temporary diskspace being > required.
Note my last sentence: we'd need to provide for cases where this was a problem. How much that would complicate the code, I don't know... This is another case where someone (with more skills than me) would need to hack the backend enough to be able to test it and see how big a performance gain there was. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(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
