Re: qsort (was Re: Solaris)

From: Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)cvc(dot)net>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mike Castle <dalgoda(at)ix(dot)netcom(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: qsort (was Re: Solaris)
Date: 2003-05-02 05:10:28
Message-ID: 3EB1FDC4.5191D826@cvc.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

The trend has been approx:

On Linux
BSD qsort is 30-55% faster on average.
On Non Liux
BSD qsor it 50-90% on average.

This kind of says that Linux is doing something right in the kernal,
outdoing mainframe software in this sort of thing.

Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
> I prevailed on some friends to try out a non Redhat distro plus HPUX 10.20 :
>
> 1 United Linux 1.0 (x86 Linux 2.4.19 )
>
> Value (i = index) BSD GLIBC (seconds)
> random() * mod 0.35 0.56
> i % mod 0.14 0.41
> i / (ITEMS / mod) 0.10 0.27
> i ^ 0x5555555 0.26 0.42
>
> 2 HPUX 10.20 (pa-risc1.1 D380 )
>
> Value (i = index) BSD HPUX (seconds)
> random() * mod 8.3 14.0
> i % mod 2.9 4.9
> i / (ITEMS / mod) 2.4 2.9
> i ^ 0x5555555 7.8 13.8
>
> The HPUX results are interesting !
>
> regards
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-05-02 05:31:06 Re: qsort (was Re: Solaris)
Previous Message nolan 2003-05-02 04:27:11 Re: Updating a table which is null doesn't work? (fwd)