| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The case for removing replacement selection sort |
| Date: | 2017-09-11 16:01:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznLisGnfdy2NQ4LpD4-jXX+sNuuW_vVSUVUKVKcabDeRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Overall I think the results show quite significant positive impact of
> the patch. There are a few cases of regression, but ISTM those may
> easily be noise as it's usually 0.03 vs 0.04 second, or something. I'll
> switch to the \timing (instead of /usr/bin/time) to get more accurate
> results, and rerun those tests.
I'm glad to hear it. While I'm not surprised, I still don't consider
the patch to be a performance enhancement. It is intended to lower the
complexity of tuplesort.c, and the overall performance improvement is
just a bonus IMV.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2017-09-11 16:04:53 | Re: pg_stat_wal_write statistics view |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-11 15:50:25 | Re: The case for removing replacement selection sort |