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

Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jay Levitt <jay(dot)levitt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jim Decibel! Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time
Date: 2012-02-08 23:33:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That was clear from an early stage, and is something that I
> acknowledged way back in September

OK, so why didn't/don't we do and commit that part first, and then
proceed to argue about the remainder once it's in?

> I think that there may be additional benefits from making the
> qsort_arg specialisation look less like a c stdlib one, like refining
> the swap logic to have compile-time knowledge of the type it is
> sorting. I'm thinking that we could usefully trim quite a bit from
> this:

That's an interesting idea, which seems worth pursuing, though
possibly not for 9.2.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dan ScalesDate: 2012-02-09 00:00:29
Subject: Re: double writes using "double-write buffer" approach [WIP]
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-02-08 23:26:52
Subject: Re: CLOG contention, part 2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group