Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-09-29 04:27:50
Message-ID: 1285733907-sup-8868@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Josh Kupershmidt's message of mar sep 28 23:53:33 -0400 2010:

> I started looking at the performance impact of this patch based on
> Leonardo's SQL file. On the 2 million row table, I see a consistent
> ~10% advantage for the sequential scan clusters. I'm going to try to
> run the bigger tests a few times and post results from there when I
> get a chance.

10% is nothing.  I was expecting this patch would give an order of
magnitude of improvement or somethine like that in the worst cases of
the current code (highly unsorted input)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Itagaki TakahiroDate: 2010-09-29 05:12:59
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-09-29 04:27:33
Subject: Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group