Re: Using mmap(2) in sort(1) instead of temp files

2024-04-05 Thread Brett Lymn
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 02:38:02PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote: > > Since the original comment hints at "instead of temp files" it is pretty > clear that the second variant is meant. This avoids all file system operations > and if the machine you run on has enough free memory it might not even >

Re: Using mmap(2) in sort(1) instead of temp files

2024-04-05 Thread Mouse
>> [...] > Why not stat the input file and decide to use in memory iff the file > is small enough? This way sort will handle large sorts on small > memory machines automatically. Well, I'm not the one (putatively) doing the work. But my answers to that are: (1) Small sorts are not the issue, IM

Re: Using mmap(2) in sort(1) instead of temp files

2024-04-05 Thread Taylor R Campbell
> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:36:42 -0400 (EDT) > From: Mouse > > (4) Are there still incoherencies between mmap and read/write access? > At one time there were, and I never got a good handle on what needed to > be done to avoid them. This bug was fixed nearly a quarter century ago, in November 200

Re: Using mmap(2) in sort(1) instead of temp files

2024-04-05 Thread Mouse
>> (4) Are there still incoherencies between mmap and read/write >> access? At one time there were, [...] > This bug was fixed nearly a quarter century ago, in November 2000, > with the merge of the unified buffer cache. Ah, I recall UBC being brought in. > I think using any version of NetBSD re