Re: A worst case for qsort
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A worst case for qsort |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobewrKKHG6wPovAmS3EZH+3kvD7Wv2uBWyiyyVbuzhidw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A worst case for qsort (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: A worst case for qsort
Re: A worst case for qsort |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Rod Taylor <rod.taylor@gmail.com> wrote: >> This one is frequently sorted as batch operations against the files are >> performed in alphabetical order to reduce conflict issues that a random >> ordering may cause between jobs. > > Sure. There are cases out there. But, again, I have a hard time > imagining why you'd expect those to be pre-sorted in practice, ... Well, I'm not sure why you're having a hard time imagining it. Presorted input is a common case in general; that's why we have a check for it. That check adds overhead in the non-pre-sorted case to improve the pre-sorted case, and nobody's ever argued for removing it that I can recall. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: