Re: PoC: Partial sort
От | Jeremy Harris |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PoC: Partial sort |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52AC6B76.7050103@wizmail.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PoC: Partial sort (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PoC: Partial sort
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 14/12/13 12:54, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-12-14 13:59:02 +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> Currently when we need to get ordered result from table we have to choose >> one of two approaches: get results from index in exact order we need or do >> sort of tuples. However, it could be useful to mix both methods: get >> results from index in order which partially meets our requirements and do >> rest of work from heap. > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Limit (cost=69214.06..69214.08 rows=10 width=16) (actual >> time=0.097..0.099 rows=10 loops=1) >> -> Sort (cost=69214.06..71714.06 rows=1000000 width=16) (actual >> time=0.096..0.097 rows=10 loops=1) >> Sort Key: v1, v2 >> Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 25kB >> -> Index Scan using test_v1_idx on test (cost=0.42..47604.42 >> rows=1000000 width=16) (actual time=0.017..0.066 rows=56 loops=1) >> Total runtime: 0.125 ms >> (6 rows) > > Is that actually all that beneficial when sorting with a bog standard > qsort() since that doesn't generally benefit from data being pre-sorted? > I think we might need to switch to a different algorithm to really > benefit from mostly pre-sorted input. Eg: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5291467E.6070807@wizmail.org Maybe Alexander and I should bash our heads together. -- Cheers, Jeremy
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: