Re: qsort, once again

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jerry Sievers" <jerry(at)jerrysievers(dot)com>
Subject: Re: qsort, once again
Date: 2006-03-21 20:17:19
Message-ID: 87lkv3mu28.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> and here are the results using glibc's qsort, which of course isn't
> quicksort at all but some kind of merge sort:
> ...
> Overall: average cratio 0.63 over 525 tests

That looks better both on average and in the worst case. Are the time
constants that much worse that the merge sort still takes longer?

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-03-21 20:30:51 Re: [GENERAL] A real currency type
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-03-21 20:08:40 Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index behaviour)