Re: Re: Which qsort is used

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Which qsort is used
Date: 2005-12-19 11:37:30
Message-ID: 20051219113724.GD12251@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:43:58PM -0800, Dann Corbit wrote:
> I am actually quite impressed with the excellence of Bentley's sort out
> of the box. It's definitely the best library implementation of a sort I
> have seen.

I'm not sure whether we have a conclusion here, but I do have one
question: is there a significant difference in the number of times the
comparison routines are called? Comparisons in PostgreSQL are fairly
expensive given the fmgr overhead and when comparing tuples it's even
worse.

We don't want to accedently pick a routine that saves data shuffling by
adding extra comparisons. The stats at [1] don't say. They try to
factor in CPU cost but they seem to use unrealistically small values. I
would think a number around 50 (or higher) would be more
representative.

[1] http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~zhouqq/postgresql/sort/sort.html

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2005-12-19 12:07:26 Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption
Previous Message Dave Page 2005-12-19 10:51:25 Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption