Re: [HACKERS] The case for removing replacement selection sort

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> With the additional enhancements made to Postgres 10, I doubt that
> there are any remaining cases where it wins.

I tried my favorite sorting test case -- pgbench -i -s 300 and then
reindex index pgbench_accounts_pkey.  I set maintenance_work_mem to
4MB so that replacement selection would be chosen.

On master, this takes ~21.5 seconds; with replacement_sort_tuples = 0,
it takes ~19.1 seconds.  So, disabling replacement selection is a win.

On 9.6, this takes ~19.1 seconds; with replacement_sort_tuples = 0, it
takes ~23 seconds.  So, disabling replacement selection is a loss.

This supports your theory that we should go ahead and remove
replacement selection.  It does however both me a bit that this test
case is apparently slower in master than in 9.6, and not just with
very small values of work_mem.  With default maintenance_work_mem
(64MB), this takes about 13 seconds on 9.6 but about 15 seconds on
master -- and with that setting replacement selection is not chosen at
all.

Any idea what causes this regression?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers