Re: branch-free tuplesort partitioning

From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: branch-free tuplesort partitioning
Date: 2024-11-26 00:50:45
Message-ID: CANWCAZY8PgBtZ7OOuooxq-qwJ5PcdoOs3hRHHR0mZt+JNDaX+g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 10:20 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> I suggest using a test program for this that Tom wrote nearly 20 years
> ago to validate changes that were made to the Bentley & McIlroy qsort,
> available from here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18732.1142967137@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> It generates most of the standardized inputs described by the B&M
> paper. For example, it will generate "Sawtooth" inputs. (Though I
> don't see "organ pipe" input -- that one was a more adversarial case,
> described by their paper, which might also be interesting.)

Thanks for that reference, that will be useful!

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2024-11-26 01:10:07 Re: Reordering DISTINCT keys to match input path's pathkeys
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-11-26 00:49:04 Re: Use more CppAsString2() in pg_amcheck.c