| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: sorting problem | 
| Date: | 2004-12-17 20:36:58 | 
| Message-ID: | 87u0qkirv9.fsf@stark.xeocode.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> >> Using an index to do an order by is an order N operation. 
> 
> > No, using an index to do an order by is actually still n*log(n). You have to
> > traverse all the parent pages in the binary tree of the index as well.
> 
> Only if you searched afresh from the root for each key, which an
> indexscan is not going to do.
Isn't that still nlog(n)? In the end you're going to have read in every page
of the index including all those non-leaf pages. Aren't there nlog(n) pages?
-- 
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jerry LeVan | 2004-12-17 20:41:26 | OSX 10.3.7 broke Postgresql 8.0.0b5? | 
| Previous Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2004-12-17 20:09:52 | Re: sorting problem |