Re: About tapes
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: About tapes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikDd6EDyueHcjvkm6tyqoBVMEKYpdPc51o2fMUa@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: About tapes ("mac_man2005@hotmail.it" <mac_man2005@hotmail.it>) |
Ответы |
Re: About tapes
Re: About tapes |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, mac_man2005@hotmail.it <mac_man2005@hotmail.it> wrote: > Il 18/06/2010 21:00, Robert Haas ha scritto: >> >> On Fri, Jun 18 >> Did you read the rest of the comment? It explains how the code avoids >> this... >> >> > > Robert, thanks for your reply. > I read the rest of the document, but please take in account that my question > wasn't about "avoiding". > My question is "in which cases"? > > I repeat my question. Tuplesort.c and logtape.c DO implement tapes on disk > and currently they do not request 2x or 4x of the input space: so, again, in > which case implementing tapes on disks requires between 2x and 4x of input > space? I think that the comment is saying that it *would* take 2x or 4x the input space IF we created a separate file for each input. So instead we don't. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: