Re: A qsort template

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:30 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for looking at this.
>
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 02:11, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > IIUC, this function is called by tuplesort_begin_common, which in turn
> > is called by tuplesort_begin_{heap, indexes, etc}. The latter callers
> > set the onlyKey and now oneKeySort variables as appropriate, and
> > sometimes hard-coded to false. Is it intentional to set them here
> > first?
> >
> > Falling under the polish that you were likely thinking of above:
>
> I did put the patch together quickly just for the benchmark and at the
> time I was subtly aware that the onlyKey field was being set using a
> similar condition as I was using to set the boolean field I'd added.
> On reflection today, it should be fine just to check if that field is
> NULL or not in the 3 new comparison functions. Similarly to before,
> this only needs to be done if the datums compare equally, so does not
> add any code to the path where the datums are non-equal. It looks
> like the other tuplesort_begin_* functions use a different comparison
> function that will never make use of the specialization comparison
> functions added by 697492434.

Okay, this makes logical sense and is a smaller patch to boot. I've
re-run my tests (attached) to make sure we have our bases covered. I'm
sharing the min-of-five, as before, but locally I tried . The
regression is fixed, and most other differences from v15 seem to be
noise. It's possible the naturally fastest cases (pre-sorted ints and
bigints) are slower than v15-revert than expected from noise, but it's
not clear.

I think this is good to go.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com