From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why do we still perform a check for pre-sorted input within qsort variants? |
Date: | 2013-03-09 00:58:51 |
Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMVaztu2gJ4ysMRekBmRKBNT1xgCh8T1GXKd5GKakbqGA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> wrote:
> Checking for pre-sorted input will not make the routine faster on average.
> However, it prevents a common perverse case where the runtime goes quadratic, so sorting 10^6 elements will take K*10^12th operations when the bad condition does occur.
> Checking for pre-sorted data can be thought of as an insurance policy. It's kind of a pain to pay the premiums, but you sure are glad you have it when an accident occurs.
> Because the check is linear, and the algorithm is O(n*log(n)), the cost is not terribly significant.
Well pre-sorted inputs are not the only quadratic case. If we really
wanted to eliminate quadratic cases we could implement the pivot
choice algorithm that guarantees n*log(n) worst-case. But that will
increase the average run-time. If we're not doing that then I think
your whole argument falls apart. We do care about the average case as
well as the worst-case.
There's been a *ton* of research on sorting. I find it hard to believe
there isn't a pretty solid consensus on which which of these defense
mechanisms is the best trade-off.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-03-09 01:01:53 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Call for Google Summer of Code mentors, admins |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-03-09 00:41:04 | Re: Index Unqiueness |