On 15/06/10 06:21, Eliot Gable wrote:
Just curious if this would apply to PostgreSQL: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1814327 <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1814327>Now that I've read it, it seems like a no-brainer. So, how does PostgreSQL deal with the different latencies involved in accessing data on disk for searches / sorts vs. accessing data in memory? Is it allocated in a similar way as described in the article such that disk access is reduced to a minimum?
I don't think we have any binary heap structures that are large enough for this to matter. We use a binary heap when merging tapes in the tuplesort code, for example, but that's tiny.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
