Tom,
> BTW, as for your original question about performance, the current
> external sort algorithm is mainly designed to conserve disk space,
> not to be as fast as possible. ÂIt could probably be a good bit faster
> if we didn't mind taking twice as much space (mainly because the
> physical disk
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 10:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Could anybody comment on whether the current tests appropriately cover
> > the correctness of the external sorting algorithms?
>
> It's highly unlikely that the regression tests stress external sorts
>
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could anybody comment on whether the current tests appropriately cover
> the correctness of the external sorting algorithms?
It's highly unlikely that the regression tests stress external sorts
much, or that anyone would hold still for making them run long
PostgreSQL uses two different sorting algorithms, qsort and the external
sorting method in tuplesort.c. There are some possible improvements in
external sorting, so I'd like to check on the solidity of the testing
mechanisms.
Whether external sorting can be improved upon is a different debate,
t
