From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: The case for removing replacement selection sort |
Date: | 2017-08-30 22:14:35 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzn8OTH9Tz7T=_=97fYvngLar2d+ObYwrQoqZDd9PzOzNw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> That may all be true, but my point is that if it wins in some cases,
> we should keep it -- and proving it no longer wins in those cases will
> require running tests.
That's not hard. On my laptop:
$ pgbench -i -s 100
...
postgres=# set work_mem = '2MB';
SET
postgres=# show replacement_sort_tuples ;
replacement_sort_tuples
─────────────────────────
150000
(1 row)
(30784) /postgres=# select count(distinct aid) from pgbench_accounts ;
count
────────────
10,000,000
(1 row)
Time: 4157.267 ms (00:04.157)
(30784) /postgres=# set replacement_sort_tuples = 0;
SET
(30784) /postgres=# select count(distinct aid) from pgbench_accounts ;
count
────────────
10,000,000
(1 row)
Time: 3343.789 ms (00:03.344)
This is significantly faster, in a way that's clearly reproducible and
consistent, despite the fact that we need about 10 merge passes
without replacement selection, and only have enough memory for 7
tapes. I think that I could find a case that makes replacement
selection look much worse, if I tried.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-08-30 22:16:59 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: pg_rewind: Fix some problems when copying files >2GB. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-30 22:01:58 | Re: pg_upgrade changes can it use CREATE EXTENSION? |