On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 21:34 +, Sam Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:17:22PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Currently, our sort algorithm assumes that its input is unsorted. So if
> > your data is sorted on (a) and you would like it to be sorted on (a,b)
> > then we need to perform the f
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 22:35 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If we assume we use heap sort, then if we *know* that the data is
> > presorted on (a) then we should be able to emit tuples directly that the
> > value of (a) changes and keep emitting them u
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is your CopyReadLineText speedup, but I think there are too
many open questions on it, e.g.:
...
So I suggest we take it out of the queue for now and kick it back to
you.
Per my comments just now, t
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is your CopyReadLineText speedup, but I think there are too many
open questions on it, e.g.:
...
So I suggest we take it out of the queue for now and kick it back to you.
Per my comments just now, the question is whether it's be
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There is your CopyReadLineText speedup, but I think there are too many
open questions on it, e.g.:
...
So I suggest we take it out of the queue for now and kick it back to you.
Per my comments just now, the question is wheth
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is your CopyReadLineText speedup, but I think there are too many
> open questions on it, e.g.:
> ...
> So I suggest we take it out of the queue for now and kick it back to you.
Per my comments just now, the question is whether it's been adequatel
"Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Umm, I don't think there's any patches from me in the queue that need
> review. There's some discussion threads related to bitmap indexes, but
> that's all. We're definitely not going to get bitmap indexes in this
> commit fest.
I think there a
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Incidentally, I'm in favour of letting Heikki review his own work
because there's a backlog on index changes that appears to be months
long and he has a good chance of tackling that.
Umm, I don't think there's any patches from me in the queue tha
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 08:48 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I don't think that list is complete. The full archive is:
>
> http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
>
> Sorry, there is no summary.
I've reviewed Nikhil's partitioning patch for now.
I have some time to contribute, but not much. I
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 23:07 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > > Simon, would it be too much to ask that you concentrate on reviewing
> > > existing patches during commit fest? Trying to get people to think
> > > about random new ideas is about the most direct undermining of the
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 23:07 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
Simon, would it be too much to ask that you concentrate on reviewing
existing patches during commit fest? Trying to get people to think
about random new ideas is about the most direct undermining of the
commit-fest concep
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 23:07 +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Simon, would it be too much to ask that you concentrate on reviewing
> > existing patches during commit fest? Trying to get people to think
> > about random new ideas is about the most direct undermining of the
> > commit-fest concept that
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 18:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Currently, our sort algorithm assumes that its input is unsorted. So if
> > your data is sorted on (a) and you would like it to be sorted on (a,b)
> > then we need to perform the full sort of (a,b).
>
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we assume we use heap sort, then if we *know* that the data is
> presorted on (a) then we should be able to emit tuples directly that the
> value of (a) changes and keep emitting them until the heap is empty,
> since they will exit the heap in (a,b) o
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently, our sort algorithm assumes that its input is unsorted. So if
> your data is sorted on (a) and you would like it to be sorted on (a,b)
> then we need to perform the full sort of (a,b).
Simon, would it be too much to ask that you concentrate on re
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 05:17:22PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Currently, our sort algorithm assumes that its input is unsorted. So if
> your data is sorted on (a) and you would like it to be sorted on (a,b)
> then we need to perform the full sort of (a,b).
>
> For small sorts this doesn't matter
Currently, our sort algorithm assumes that its input is unsorted. So if
your data is sorted on (a) and you would like it to be sorted on (a,b)
then we need to perform the full sort of (a,b).
For small sorts this doesn't matter much. For larger sorts the heap sort
algorithm will typically result in
17 matches
Mail list logo
