On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
> I'll now talk about my patch series in general -- the actual
> consequences of not avoiding a single pass merge phase when the master
> branch would have done so.

That's what I was asking about.  It seemed to me that you were saying
we could ignore those cases, which doesn't seem to me to be true.

> The latter 16MB work_mem example query/table is still faster with a
> 12MB work_mem than master, even with multiple passes. Quite a bit
> faster, in fact: about 37 seconds on master, to about 24.7 seconds
> with the patches (same for higher settings short of 16MB).

Is this because we save enough by quicksorting rather than heapsorting
to cover the cost of the additional merge phase?

If not, then why is it happening like this?

> I should point out that there is no evidence that any case has been
> regressed, let alone written off entirely or ignored. I looked. I
> probably have not been completely exhaustive, and I'd be willing to
> believe there is something that I've missed, but it's still quite
> possible that there is no downside to any of this.

If that's so, it's excellent news.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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

Reply via email to