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

Re: An idea on faster CHAR field indexing

From: Giles Lean <giles(at)nemeton(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Randall Parker" <randall(at)nls(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-Dev" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: An idea on faster CHAR field indexing
Date: 2000-06-22 08:47:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Interesting.  That certainly suggests strxfrm could be a loser for
> a database index too, but I agree it'd be nice to see some actual
> measurements rather than speculation.
> What locale(s) were you using when testing your sort code?  I suspect
> the answers might depend on locale quite a bit...

I did a little more measurement today.  It's still only annecdotal
evidence -- I wasn't terribly rigorous -- but here are my results.

My data file consisted of ~660,000 lines and a total size of ~200MB.
Each line had part descriptions in German and some uninteresting
fields.  I stripped out the uninteresting fields and read the file
calling calling strxfrm() for each line.  I recorded the total input
bytes and the total bytes returned by strxfrm().

HP-UX 11.00 de_DE.roman8 locale:
input bytes:   179647811
result bytes: 1447833496 (increase factor 8.05)

Solaris 2.6 de_CH locale:
input bytes:   179647811 
result bytes: 1085875122 (increase factor 6.04)

I didn't time the test program on Solaris, but on HP-UX this program
took longer to run than a simplistic qsort() using strcoll() does, and
my comparison sort program has to write the data out as well, which
the strxfrm() calling program didn't do.



pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2000-06-22 09:07:18
Subject: RE: Big 7.1 open items
Previous:From: Philip J. WarnerDate: 2000-06-22 07:50:15
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group