On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout

> 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.

Agree. Your reasoning looks correct.

> 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.

Thanks. I'll take care about.

With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.

Reply via email to