Re: sort: Parallel merging

[Chen Guo]

BTW, Shaun, this is Glen's patch from a year ago. 

Also, forgot to CC the mailing list, so I'm gonna paste my last email:

Hi Shaun

> >     As for buffer size, I highly doubt using 8 mb, even if we're magically
> > guaranteed to get 100% of the cpu cache, would work better than a larger
> > buffer.
> > 
> >     The main reason would be for larger files, you'd have to repeatedly 
> > write
> > temporary files out to disk, then merge those temporary files. Whatever
> > time you save talking to cache is more than lost to the extra time talking
> > to disk.
> 
> What if the temporary files were stored in RAM (i.e. tmpfs) rather than
> on magnetic disk?

I think I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say... But the file stored
in ram would be in a buffer. --buffer-size sets the size of this buffer, i.e. 
how
much space in RAM you want to allocate to sort.

tt
Description: Binary data