Re: some aspects of our qsort might not be ideal
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: some aspects of our qsort might not be ideal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-Wz==W5vvXkUcRsM7Uo3tGOTBN_wqd1wbx3ivskUsVZJ2HQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: some aspects of our qsort might not be ideal (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: some aspects of our qsort might not be ideal
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 7:51 AM Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that mostly has to do with reliability / stability of ORDER BY > in combination with LIMIT and OFFSET, even though right now we cannot > fully guarantee such stability due to unstable results from underlying > plan nodes. The current qsort isn't stable. While quicksort is never stable, our particular implementation has fairly significant optimizations that strongly rely on not using a stable sort. In particular, the B&M optimizations for duplicate elements. These optimizations make things like datum tuplesorts for 'SELECT(DISTINCT mycol) ...' style queries on low cardinality columns extremely fast. We're not really sorting so much as bucketing. This is based on Dijkstra's Dutch national flag problem. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: