[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron) writes: > At 03:45 PM 8/25/2005, Josh Berkus wrote: >> > Ask me sometime about my replacement for GNU sort. Â It uses the >> > same sorting algorithm, but it's an order of magnitude faster due >> > to better I/O strategy. Â Someday, in my infinite spare time, I >> > hope to demonstrate that kind of improvement with a patch to pg. >> >>Since we desperately need some improvements in sort performance, I >>do hope you follow up on this. > > I'll generalize that. IMO we desperately need any and all > improvements in IO performance. Even more so than we need > improvements in sorting or sorting IO performance.
That's frankly a step backwards. Feel free to "specialise" that instead. A patch that improves some specific aspect of performance is a thousand times better than any sort of "desperate desire for any and all improvements in I/O performance." The latter is unlikely to provide any usable result. The "specialized patch" is also pointedly better in that a *confidently submitted* patch is likely to be way better than any sort of "desperate clutching at whatever may come to hand." Far too often, I see people trying to address performance problems via the "desperate clutching at whatever seems near to hand," and that generally turns out very badly as a particular result of the whole "desperate clutching" part. If you can get a sort improvement submitted, that's a concrete improvement... -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'ntlug.org'; http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/lisp.html Appendium to the Rules of the Evil Overlord #1: "I will not build excessively integrated security-and-HVAC systems. They may be Really Cool, but are far too vulnerable to breakdowns." ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org