On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:36 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:47 PM Melanie Plageman > <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I did the "needlessly dumb implementation" Robert mentioned, though, > > I thought about it and couldn't come up with a much smarter way to > > write match bits to a file. I think there might be an optimization > > opportunity in not writing the current_byte to the file each time that > > the outer tuple matches and only doing this once we have advanced to a > > tuple number that wouldn't have its match bit in the current_byte. I > > didn't do that to keep it simple, and, I suspect there might be a bit > > of gymnastics needed to make sure that that byte is actually written > > to the file in case we exit from some other state before we encounter > > the tuple represented in the last bit in that byte. > > I mean, I was assuming we'd write in like 8kB blocks or something. > Doing it a byte at a time seems like it'd produce way too many > syscals. > > For the actual write to disk, I'm pretty sure I get that for free from the BufFile API, no? I was more thinking about optimizing when I call BufFileWrite at all. -- Melanie Plageman
