Paul Eggert wrote: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> I think it is good idea to make option(or by default) for sorting >>>> in threads to increase performance on systems that might execute >>>> more than one thread in parallel. >>>> Klimentov Konstantin. > > I agree. That's been on my to-do list for years. (It shouldn't be > that hard, if you ignore portability hassles. :-) >
Hi Paul, I've modified my local sort to parallelize large merges by dividing inputs among a number of children whose outputs are merged by the parent. This only benefits large bulk sorts indirectly by parallelizing the merge of temp files, but it can still provide a performance improvement. I suspect my implementation does ignore some portability hassles, but only because I haven't encountered them yet. :) Does this sound like a step in the right direction for sort? If I were to clean this up and submit it would you be willing to assess its viability as a portable improvement? Thanks, Bo _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
