| From: | Gary Doades <gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Strange Create Index behaviour |
| Date: | 2006-02-15 21:47:46 |
| Message-ID: | 43F3A182.4010608@gpdnet.co.uk |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So it sure looks like this script does expose a problem on BSD-derived
> qsorts. Curiously, the case that's much the worst for me is the third
> in the script, while the shortest time is the first case, which was slow
> for Gary. So I'd venture that the *BSD code has been tweaked somewhere
> along the way, in a manner that moves the problem around without really
> fixing it. (Anyone want to compare the actual FreeBSD source to what
> we have?)
>
> It's really interesting to see a case where port/qsort is radically
> worse than other qsorts ... unless we figure that out and fix it,
> I think the idea of using port/qsort everywhere has just taken a
> major hit.
>
More specifically to BSD, is there any way I can use a non-BSD qsort for
building Postresql server?
Regards,
Gary.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-15 21:48:56 | Re: Strange Create Index behaviour |
| Previous Message | Gary Doades | 2006-02-15 21:34:11 | Re: Strange Create Index behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-15 21:48:56 | Re: Strange Create Index behaviour |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-15 21:36:51 | Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS |