Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > I've applied patch on top of c12d570f and rerun the same benchmarks. > > CSV-file with results is attached. There is no

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I've applied patch on top of c12d570f and rerun the same benchmarks. > CSV-file with results is attached. There is no dramatical changes. There > is still minority of performance regression cases while

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Alexander Korotkov < a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Alexander Korotkov < > a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> Patch rebased to current master is attached. I'm going to improve my >> testing script and post new results. >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Incremental sort is faster in vast majority of cases. It appears to be > slower only when whose dataset is one sort group. In this case incremental > sort is useless, and it should be considered as misuse of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > But I'd like to make incremental sort not slower than quicksort in case > of > > presorted data. New idea about it comes to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > But I'd like to make incremental sort not slower than quicksort in case of > presorted data. New idea about it comes to my mind. Since cause of > incremental sort slowness in this case is too frequent reset

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > OK, I get it. Our qsort is so fast not only on 100% presorted case. > > However, that doesn't change many things in context of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > OK, I get it. Our qsort is so fast not only on 100% presorted case. > However, that doesn't change many things in context of incremental sort. The important point is to make any presorted test case only

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Alexander Korotkov > wrote: > > That appears to be wrong. I intended to make cost_sort prefer plain sort > > over incremental sort for this dataset size. But,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > That appears to be wrong. I intended to make cost_sort prefer plain sort > over incremental sort for this dataset size. But, that appears to be not > always right solution. Quick sort is so fast only on

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On 2017-04-03 22:18:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > To me this hasn't gotten even remotely enough performance evaluation. > > And I don't think it's fair to characterize it as pending since 2013, > > given it was

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > To me this hasn't gotten even remotely enough performance evaluation. > And I don't think it's fair to characterize it as pending since 2013, > given it was essentially "waiting on author" for most of that. This is

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-04 00:04:09 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > >Thank you! > > > >I already sent version of patch after David's reminder. > > > >Please find rebased patch in the attachment. > > > > > > Cool. I think

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

Hi, On 2017-04-04 00:04:09 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > >Thank you! > > >I already sent version of patch after David's reminder. > > >Please find rebased patch in the attachment. > > > > Cool. I think that's still a bit late for v10? > > > > I don't know. ISTM, that I addressed all the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On April 3, 2017 12:03:56 PM PDT, Alexander Korotkov < > a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Andres Freund > >wrote: > > > >> On 2017-03-29 00:17:02 +0300, Alexander

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On April 3, 2017 12:03:56 PM PDT, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Andres Freund >wrote: > >> On 2017-03-29 00:17:02 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:27 PM, David Steele

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On 2017-03-29 00:17:02 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:27 PM, David Steele wrote: > > > Hi Alexander, > > > > On 3/20/17 10:19 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > > >> On 03/20/2017 11:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > >> > >>> Please, find

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:27 PM, David Steele wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > On 3/20/17 10:19 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> On 03/20/2017 11:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> >>> Please, find rebased patch in the attachment. >>> >> >> I had a quick look at this. >> > >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

Hi Alexander, On 3/20/17 10:19 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 03/20/2017 11:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Please, find rebased patch in the attachment. I had a quick look at this. <...> According to 'perf', 85% of the CPU time is spent in ExecCopySlot(). To alleviate that, it might

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

On 03/20/2017 11:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: Please, find rebased patch in the attachment. I had a quick look at this. * I'd love to have an explanation of what an Incremental Sort is, in the file header comment for nodeIncrementalSort.c. * I didn't understand the maxMem stuff in

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: This patch needs to be rebased. 1. It fails while applying as below patching file src/test/regress/expected/sysviews.out Hunk #1 FAILED at 70. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I decided to start new thread for this patch for following two reasons. > * It's renamed from "Partial sort" to "Incremental sort" per suggestion by > Robert Haas [1]. New name much better characterizes the