Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I did some performance testing of the patch, and the results were good. > I did this:
> test=> CREATE TABLE test (x INTEGER); > test=> INSERT INTO test SELECT * FROM generate_series(1, 1000000); > test=> SET log_min_duration_statement = 0; > test=> SELECT * FROM test ORDER BY x LIMIT 3; LIMIT 3 seems an awfully favorable case; if the patch can only manage a factor of 4 speedup there, what happens at limit 10, 20, 100? Also, you've tested only one sort size and only one (unspecified) value of work_mem, and the usefulness of the patch would surely vary depending on that. In particular, what happens with a LIMIT large enough to overflow work_mem? Lastly, I suspect that sorting presorted input might be particularly favorable for this patch. Please try it with random data for comparison. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster