From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LIMIT/SORT optimization |
Date: | 2007-04-07 18:11:48 |
Message-ID: | 10816.1175969508@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> I did some performance testing of the patch, and the results were good.
> I did this:
> test=> CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER);
> test=> INSERT INTO test SELECT * FROM generate_series(1, 1000000);
> test=> SET log_min_duration_statement = 0;
> test=> SELECT * FROM test ORDER BY x LIMIT 3;
LIMIT 3 seems an awfully favorable case; if the patch can only manage a
factor of 4 speedup there, what happens at limit 10, 20, 100? Also,
you've tested only one sort size and only one (unspecified) value of
work_mem, and the usefulness of the patch would surely vary depending on
that. In particular, what happens with a LIMIT large enough to overflow
work_mem?
Lastly, I suspect that sorting presorted input might be particularly
favorable for this patch. Please try it with random data for comparison.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2007-04-07 20:37:53 | Re: RESET SESSION v2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-07 18:02:24 | Re: simply custom variables protection |