Re: [SQL] Questions about vacuum analyze

> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > The thing I liked about the existing algorithm is that it did the
> > sorting without the page faulting/thrashing caused by many sort
> > algorithms.
> 
> Yes, I think we want to stick with the basic architecture of an
> initial replacement-selection filter operating in limited memory,
> followed by merge passes.  I'm just thinking about how to reduce
> the amount of disk space chewed up by intermediate merge results...

Wonder how our create index does it.  Seems it is must be similar.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026