On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 06:21:18PM +0400, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > Is that actually all that beneficial when sorting with a bog standard
> > qsort() since that doesn't generally benefit from data being pre-sorted?
> > I think we might need to switch to a different algorithm to really
> > benefit from mostly pre-sorted input.
> >
> In this patch I don't do full sort of dataset. For instance, index returns
> data ordered by first column and we need to order them also by second
> column. Then this node sorts groups (assumed to be small) where values of
> the first column are same by value of second column. And with limit clause
> only required number of such groups will be processed. But, I don't think
> we should expect pre-sorted values of second column inside a group.

Nice. I imagine this would be mostly beneficial for fast-start plans,
since you no longer need to sort the whole table prior to returning the
first tuple.

Reduced memory usage might be a factor, especially for large sorts
where you otherwise might need to spool to disk.

You can now use an index on (a) to improve sorting for (a,b).

Cost of sorting n groups of size l goes from O(nl log nl) to just O(nl
log l), useful for large n.

Minor comments:

I find cmpTuple a bad name. That's what it's doing but perhaps
cmpSkipColumns would be clearer.

I think it's worthwhile adding a seperate path for the skipCols = 0
case, to avoid extra copies.

Have a nice day,
Martijn van Oosterhout   <klep...@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
   -- Arthur Schopenhauer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to