Re: [PERFORM] qsort again

From: Sven Geisler <sgeisler(at)aeccom(dot)com>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gary Doades <gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] qsort again
Date: 2006-02-16 13:08:40
Message-ID: 43F47958.8000605@aeccom.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
>
> Last time around there were a number of different algorithms tested.
> Did anyone run those tests while getting it to count the number of
> actual comparisons (which could easily swamp the time taken to do the
> actual sort in some cases)?
>

The last time I did such tests is almost 10 years ago. I had used
MetroWerks CodeWarrior C/C++, which had Quicksort as algorithm in the Lib C.
Anyhow, I tested a few algorithms including merge sort and heapsort. I
end up with heapsort because it was the fastest algorithm for our issue.
We joined two arrays where each array was sorted and run qsort to sort
the new array.

Sven.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2006-02-16 13:22:55 Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-02-16 12:49:18 Re: qsort again

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2006-02-16 13:22:55 Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-02-16 12:49:18 Re: qsort again