Re: Sorting Improvements for 8.4

"Brian Hurt" <bhurt@janestcapital.com> writes:

> 3) It's possible to perform the sort lazily.  You have the initial O(N) pass
> over the list, but then each block is only O(log N) cost.  If it's likely that
> only the first part of the result is needed, then much of the work can be
> avoided.

Now that's a *fascinating* idea. I'm having trouble coming up with a really
killer use case for it since the bounded heap sort takes care of many cases
where it would seem to apply. But it seems rally promising.

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!