From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Юрий Соколов <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sokolov Yura <funny(dot)falcon(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples |
Date: | 2018-01-23 03:34:29 |
Message-ID: | 20180123033429.GF2416@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Юрий Соколов (funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> Maybe it's a stupid question. But would we still want to have this after
> >> the change? These should be just specializations of the template version
> >> imo.
>
> "generic" version operates on bytes, and it will be a bit hard to combine
> it with
> templated version. Not impossible, but it will look ugly.
If that's the case then does it really make sense to make this change..?
> In attach fixed qsort_template version.
> And version for compactify_tuples with bucket_sort and templated qsort.
While having the patch is handy, I'm not seeing any performance numbers
on this version, and I imagine others watching this thread are also
wondering about things like a test run that just uses the specialized
qsort_itemIds() without the bucketsort.
Are you planning to post some updated numbers and/or an updated test
case that hopefully shows best/worst case with this change? Would be
good to get that on a couple of platforms too, if possible, since we've
seen that the original benchmarks weren't able to be consistently
repeated across different platforms. Without someone doing that
leg-work, this doesn't seem like it'll be moving forward.
Marking as Waiting on Author.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-01-23 03:54:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-23 03:29:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Add --no-comments to skip COMMENTs with pg_dump |