Update TODO.detail/qsort.

diff --git a/doc/TODO.detail/qsort b/doc/TODO.detail/qsort
index a03fa90aa05a75fa3c878f7b98fa77df90ae0328..695cabcc5f5acf6a42b93ba97bb4efff6d7ea66e 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/TODO.detail/qsort
+++ b/doc/TODO.detail/qsort
@@ -988,3 +988,92 @@ since
 > Servus
 >  Manfred
 
+From [email protected] Mon Dec 19 13:36:58 2005
+X-Original-To: [email protected]
+Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
+   by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0CC9DC810
+   for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:36:58 -0400 (AST)
+Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
+   by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
+   with ESMTP id 89341-07
+   for ;
+   Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:36:52 -0400 (AST)
+X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
+Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw02.mi8.com [63.240.6.46])
+   by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348A69DC9C2
+   for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:36:51 -0400 (AST)
+Received: from 172.16.1.25 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8
+   Corporation www.Mi8.com (D2)); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:36:45 -0500
+X-Server-Uuid: 7829E76E-BB9E-4995-8473-3C0929DF7DD1
+Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by
+   D01HOST03.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 19 Dec
+   2005 12:36:44 -0500
+Received: from 67.103.45.218 ([67.103.45.218]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com (
+   [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com (
+   [172.16.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 19 Dec
+   2005 17:36:44 +0000
+User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004
+Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:36:44 -0800
+Subject: Re: Re: Which qsort is used
+From: "Luke Lonergan" 
+To: "Martijn van Oosterhout" ,
+   "Dann Corbit" 
+cc: "Tom Lane" ,
+   "Qingqing Zhou" ,
+   "Bruce Momjian" ,
+   "Neil Conway" ,
+   [email protected]
+Message-ID: 
+Thread-Topic: [HACKERS] Re: Which qsort is used
+Thread-Index: AcYEkKvEA7duDr/yQneMyWGCfNr3rQAMhuDl
+In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2005 17:36:44.0849 (UTC)
+   FILETIME=[C7C6AA10:01C604C2]
+X-WSS-ID: 6FB830272346940585-01-01
+Content-Type: text/plain;
+   charset=us-ascii
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
+X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.253 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,
+   RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253]
+X-Spam-Score: 1.253
+X-Spam-Level: *
+X-Archive-Number: 200512/868
+X-Sequence-Number: 77716
+Status: OR
+
+Martin,
+
+On 12/19/05 3:37 AM, "Martijn van Oosterhout"  wrote:
+
+> I'm not sure whether we have a conclusion here, but I do have one
+> question: is there a significant difference in the number of times the
+> comparison routines are called? Comparisons in PostgreSQL are fairly
+> expensive given the fmgr overhead and when comparing tuples it's even
+> worse.
+
+It would be interesting to note the comparison count of the different
+routines.
+
+Something that really grabbed me about the results though is that the
+relative performance of the routines dramatically shifted when the indirect
+references in the comparators went in.  The first test I did sorted an array
+of int4 - these tests that Qingqing did sorted arrays using an indirect
+pointer list, at which point the same distributions performed very
+differently.
+
+I suspect that it is the number of comparisons that caused this, and further
+that the indirection has disabled the compiler optimizations for memory
+prefetch and other things that it could normally recognize.  Given the usage
+pattern in Postgres, where sorted things are a mix of strings and intrinsic
+types, I'm not sure those optimizations could be done by one routine.
+
+I haven't verified this, but it certainly seems that the NetBSD routine is
+the overall winner for the type of use that Postgres has (sorting the using
+a pointer list).
+
+- Luke
+
+
+