| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>, ianh(at)tpchd(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | qsort (was Re: Solaris) |
| Date: | 2003-04-29 15:17:48 |
| Message-ID: | 26779.1051629468@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> In fact I wonder if using the BSD qsort for *all* platforms might be a
>> good idea - it would provide cross platform consistency and possibly
>> better performance (e.g. It was several times quicker than glibc qsort,
>> when I checked this on Linux last year.... )
> Replacing qsort() on all platforms has a "we know better than the OS"
> feel to it that we try to avoid.
I agree on that --- but when it's provable that we do know better than a
*particular* OS, dropping in the BSD qsort seems like an easy win. Can
anyone back up Mark's finding that the BSD qsort is quicker than glibc's?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dennis Gearon | 2003-04-29 15:18:41 | Re: Backend memory leakage when inserting |
| Previous Message | Dennis Gearon | 2003-04-29 15:16:10 | Re: Importing from Access 2000? |