Re: B-Heaps
| От | Heikki Linnakangas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: B-Heaps |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4C171942.9060705@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | B-Heaps (Eliot Gable <egable+pgsql-performance@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
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
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: