From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Which qsort is used |
Date: | 2005-12-15 17:06:22 |
Message-ID: | 20051215170622.GE40699@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:10:37AM -0500, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> >
> > Overall - I'd say that the BSD routine is showing the best overall results
> > when the scale test is included. The qsortG routine has some significantly
> > better performance in certain cases at smaller sort set sizes - it could
> > probably be improved for better L2 use, but BSD is already there.
> >
> > Based on this it seems like we should expose the option to choose the BSD
> > qsort routine at configure time.
> >
>
> Before we pin down this, I hope more extensive tests on various platforms
> could be done. So we could give some suggestions when we should enable the
> "--enable-bsdqsort" option. I can post a result on a SunOS machine (but
> the problem is that many ppl share this machine) and a windows machine.
I have access to both some (SLOW) ultra5's and a machine running
opensolaris on AMD if testing there would help. I'll need a pointer to a
patch and test-case though...
Oh, I also have access to an old SGI...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-15 17:13:16 | Re: Automatic function replanning |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-12-15 17:02:46 | Re: 7.3 failure on platypus |