On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:46 PM David Rowley <
dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I didn't do a detailed review of the sort patch, but I did wonder
> about the use of the name "fallback" in the new functions. The
> comment in the following snippet from qsort_tuple_unsigned_compare()
> makes me think "tiebreak" is a better name.
I agree "tiebreak" is better.
> I also wonder if the weirdness I reported in [1] would also disappear
> with your patch. There's a patch on that thread that hacks up the
> planner to split multi-column sorts into Sort -> Incremental Sort
> rather than just a single sort.
I tried that test (attached in script form) with and without the tiebreaker patch and got some improvement:
HEAD:
4 ^ 8: latency average = 113.976 ms
5 ^ 8: latency average = 783.830 ms
6 ^ 8: latency average = 3990.351 ms
7 ^ 8: latency average = 15793.629 ms
Skip rechecking first key:
4 ^ 8: latency average = 107.028 ms
5 ^ 8: latency average = 732.327 ms
6 ^ 8: latency average = 3709.882 ms
7 ^ 8: latency average = 14570.651 ms
I gather that planner hack was just a demonstration, so I didn't test it, but if that was a move toward something larger I can run additional tests.
The configuration was (same as yesterday, but forgot to mention then)
turbo off
shared_buffers = '8GB';
work_mem = '4GB';