From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Kefan Yang <starordust(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GSOC 2018 Project - A New Sorting Routine |
Date: | 2018-07-13 22:10:18 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzmj2XstMK58tJ0yEr+0MwpqMU8rfUB0j7GVe=p+yW5rTg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Kefan Yang <starordust(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. Slow on CREATE INDEX cases.
>
> I am still trying to figure out where the bottleneck is. Is the data pattern
> in index creation very different from other cases? Also, pg_qsort has
> 10%-20% advantage at creating index even on sorted data (faster CPU, N =
> 1000000). This is very strange to me since the two sorting routines execute
> exactly the same code when the input data is sorted.
Yes. CREATE INDEX uses heap TID as a tie-breaker, so it's impossible
for any two index tuples to compare as equal within tuplesort.c, even
though they may be equal in other contexts. This is likely to defeat
things like the Bentley-McIlroy optimization where equal keys are
swapped, which is very effective in the event of many equal keys.
(Could also be parallelism, though I suppose you probably accounted for that.)
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2018-07-13 22:14:51 | Re: Finding database for pg_upgrade missing library |
Previous Message | Kefan Yang | 2018-07-13 22:04:55 | Fwd: GSOC 2018 Project - A New Sorting Routine |