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

From: Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-09-29 07:17:07
Message-ID: 687719.72142.qm@web29010.mail.ird.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > 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)
>
> Yes. It should be x10 faster than ordinary method in the worst cases.

Here's my post with a (very simple) performance test:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00766.php

The test I used wasn't a "worst case" scenario, since it is based on
random data, not wrong-ordered data. Obviously, the real difference
can be seen on large tables (5M+ rows), and/or slow disks.

Leonardo

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Itagaki Takahiro 2010-09-29 07:56:33 operator dependency of commutator and negator
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2010-09-29 07:14:45 Re: recovery.conf location