[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
sort: Parallel merging
From: |
Shaun Jackman |
Subject: |
sort: Parallel merging |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:29:35 -0800 |
Hi,
Do any patches exist to fork the merging stage of sort and run multiple
merge processes in parallel? It seems like a relatively straight forward
improvement, especially since a lot of the fork/wait magic has already
been tackled by --compress-program. I wonder what the optimal
--batch-size would be; NMERGE=2 would be the most parallel, but would
require more I/O.
Does anyone here know the effect of the CPU cache size on the optimal
--buffer-size? I was wondering if it's possible that setting it to the
CPU cache size (say 8 MB) could possible be faster than a larger buffer.
Cheers,
Shaun
- sort: Parallel merging,
Shaun Jackman <=
- Re: sort: Parallel merging, Chen Guo, 2010/02/17
- Re: sort: Parallel merging, Shaun Jackman, 2010/02/17
- Re: sort: Parallel merging, Chen Guo, 2010/02/17
- Message not available
- Re: sort: Parallel merging, Shaun Jackman, 2010/02/17
- Message not available
- Re: sort: Parallel merging, Shaun Jackman, 2010/02/17
- Re: sort: Parallel merging, Chen Guo, 2010/02/17
- Re: sort: Parallel merging, Chen Guo, 2010/02/17