>> [ shrug... ] If you are bothered by that, get off your duff and provide
>> the function for your datatype.  But it's certainly going to be in the
>> noise for btree index usage, and I submit that query parsing/setup
>> involves quite a lot of syscache lookups already.  I think that as a
>> performance objection, the above is nonsensical.  (And I would also
>> comment that your proposal with a handle is going to involve a table
>> search that's at least as expensive as a syscache lookup.)
> Agreed.  Doing something once and doing something in the sort loop are
> two different overheads.
> I am excited by this major speedup Peter Geoghegan has found.  Postgres
> doesn't have parallel query, which is often used for sorting, so we are
> already behind some of the databases are compared against.  Getting this
> speedup is definitely going to help us.  And I do like the generic
> nature of where we are heading!

Oracle has not or had not parallel sort too, and I have a reports so
Oracle does sort faster then PostgreSQL (but without any numbers). So
any solution is welcome



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

Reply via email to