On Thursday, April 4, 2024 11:28:13 PM CEST Robert Elz wrote:
> Yes, in cases where temp files are actually needed, using mmap() is a
> very minor gain indeed - the buffering cost might be saved, but sorting
> a large file is a cpu costly endeavour (lots of comparisons, lots of times
> even with th
Date:Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:05:17 -0400 (EDT)
From:Mouse
Message-ID: <202404041405.kaa01...@stone.rodents-montreal.org>
| Actually, if you mmap it PROT_WRITE and MAP_PRIVATE, you could go right
| ahead. But that'll cost RAM or swap space when the COW fault happens.
>> Given the issues about using mmap, can anybody suggest how I should
>> proceed with the implementation, or if I should at all?
> There are two potential ways where mmap(2) could help improve the speed
> of sort:
> - If you know the input file name, use a read-only mmap() of that file
>and
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:02:30PM +, Ice Cream wrote:
> Given the issues about using mmap, can anybody suggest how
> I should proceed with the implementation, or if I should at all?
There are two potential ways where mmap(2) could help improve the speed
of sort:
- If you know the input file
I originally sent this email to tech-kern but was told it would be
better suited for discussion here.
---
I'm trying to speed up sort(1) by using mmap(2) instead of temp
files.
ftmp() (see code below) is called in the sort functions to create and
return a temp file. mkstemp() is
