From 989d94a171a7107a2c10b72a70a985ac086bf0fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bruce Momjian Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:21:05 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update TODO.detail/qsort. --- doc/TODO.detail/qsort | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/TODO.detail/qsort b/doc/TODO.detail/qsort index a03fa90aa0..695cabcc5f 100644 --- a/doc/TODO.detail/qsort +++ b/doc/TODO.detail/qsort @@ -988,3 +988,92 @@ since > Servus > Manfred +From pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Mon Dec 19 13:36:58 2005 +X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org +Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) + by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0CC9DC810 + for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:36:58 -0400 (AST) +Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) + by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id 89341-07 + for ; + Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:36:52 -0400 (AST) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- +Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw02.mi8.com [63.240.6.46]) + by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348A69DC9C2 + for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:36:51 -0400 (AST) +Received: from 172.16.1.25 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 + Corporation www.Mi8.com (D2)); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:36:45 -0500 +X-Server-Uuid: 7829E76E-BB9E-4995-8473-3C0929DF7DD1 +Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by + D01HOST03.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 19 Dec + 2005 12:36:44 -0500 +Received: from 67.103.45.218 ([67.103.45.218]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( + [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( + [172.16.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 19 Dec + 2005 17:36:44 +0000 +User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 +Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:36:44 -0800 +Subject: Re: Re: Which qsort is used +From: "Luke Lonergan" +To: "Martijn van Oosterhout" , + "Dann Corbit" +cc: "Tom Lane" , + "Qingqing Zhou" , + "Bruce Momjian" , + "Neil Conway" , + pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org +Message-ID: +Thread-Topic: [HACKERS] Re: Which qsort is used +Thread-Index: AcYEkKvEA7duDr/yQneMyWGCfNr3rQAMhuDl +In-Reply-To: <20051219113724.GD12251@svana.org> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2005 17:36:44.0849 (UTC) + FILETIME=[C7C6AA10:01C604C2] +X-WSS-ID: 6FB830272346940585-01-01 +Content-Type: text/plain; + charset=us-ascii +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org +X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.253 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, + RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] +X-Spam-Score: 1.253 +X-Spam-Level: * +X-Archive-Number: 200512/868 +X-Sequence-Number: 77716 +Status: OR + +Martin, + +On 12/19/05 3:37 AM, "Martijn van Oosterhout" wrote: + +> I'm not sure whether we have a conclusion here, but I do have one +> question: is there a significant difference in the number of times the +> comparison routines are called? Comparisons in PostgreSQL are fairly +> expensive given the fmgr overhead and when comparing tuples it's even +> worse. + +It would be interesting to note the comparison count of the different +routines. + +Something that really grabbed me about the results though is that the +relative performance of the routines dramatically shifted when the indirect +references in the comparators went in. The first test I did sorted an array +of int4 - these tests that Qingqing did sorted arrays using an indirect +pointer list, at which point the same distributions performed very +differently. + +I suspect that it is the number of comparisons that caused this, and further +that the indirection has disabled the compiler optimizations for memory +prefetch and other things that it could normally recognize. Given the usage +pattern in Postgres, where sorted things are a mix of strings and intrinsic +types, I'm not sure those optimizations could be done by one routine. + +I haven't verified this, but it certainly seems that the NetBSD routine is +the overall winner for the type of use that Postgres has (sorting the using +a pointer list). + +- Luke + + + -- 2.40.0