Re: Strange Create Index behaviour

From: Gary Doades <gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Strange Create Index behaviour
Date: 2006-02-15 21:47:46
Message-ID: 43F3A182.4010608@gpdnet.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So it sure looks like this script does expose a problem on BSD-derived
> qsorts. Curiously, the case that's much the worst for me is the third
> in the script, while the shortest time is the first case, which was slow
> for Gary. So I'd venture that the *BSD code has been tweaked somewhere
> along the way, in a manner that moves the problem around without really
> fixing it. (Anyone want to compare the actual FreeBSD source to what
> we have?)
>
> It's really interesting to see a case where port/qsort is radically
> worse than other qsorts ... unless we figure that out and fix it,
> I think the idea of using port/qsort everywhere has just taken a
> major hit.
>

More specifically to BSD, is there any way I can use a non-BSD qsort for
building Postresql server?

Regards,
Gary.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-02-15 21:48:56 Re: Strange Create Index behaviour
Previous Message Gary Doades 2006-02-15 21:34:11 Re: Strange Create Index behaviour

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-02-15 21:48:56 Re: Strange Create Index behaviour
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-02-15 21:36:51 Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS