| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why do we still perform a check for pre-sorted input within qsort variants? |
| Date: | 2013-02-25 10:43:52 |
| Message-ID: | 18033.1361789032@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> In the past, Robert and I have criticised the fact that our qsort
> implementation (and the various specialisations thereof) each perform
> a check for pre-sorted input. This check does not appear in the
> original NetBSD qsort that we lifted our implementation from, and
> presumably isn't described by the document 'Qsort routine from Bentley
> & McIlroy's "Engineering a Sort Function"' that that implementation is
> based on.
FWIW, I've been suspicious of that pre-sorted check since the day it
went in. Bentley was my faculty adviser for awhile in grad school,
and I know him to be *way* too smart to have missed anything as simple
as that. But I didn't have hard evidence on which to object to it
at the time, and indeed testing seemed to say it was a good idea:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18732.1142967137@sss.pgh.pa.us
If you can provide a refutation I will gladly see it out of there.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2013-02-25 10:50:46 | PGXS contrib builds broken? |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2013-02-25 08:23:34 | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |