On 2018-Jun-24, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > nbtsort.c has a comment block from the Berkeley days that reads: > > * This code is moderately slow (~10% slower) compared to the regular > * btree (insertion) build code on sorted or well-clustered data. On > * random data, however, the insertion build code is unusable -- the > * difference on a 60MB heap is a factor of 15 because the random > * probes into the btree thrash the buffer pool. (NOTE: the above > * "10%" estimate is probably obsolete, since it refers to an old and > * not very good external sort implementation that used to exist in > * this module. tuplesort.c is almost certainly faster.) > > I propose removing this whole comment block (patch attached),
Makes sense to me, +1. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
