From: | Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A worst case for qsort |
Date: | 2014-08-07 21:34:30 |
Message-ID: | CAKddOFAfkp_3M7k+-==qcGO8FRPX=6QP9FNtsSwCMFM+pZdpiA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sigh. Found another example.
A table with 15 million entries and a unique key on filesystem location for
things users created via a web interface.
Entries all begin with /usr/home/ ...
This one is frequently sorted as batch operations against the files are
performed in alphabetical order to reduce conflict issues that a random
ordering may cause between jobs.
regards,
Rod
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I think that pre-sorted, all-unique text datums, that have all
>> differences beyond the first 8 bytes, that the user happens to
>> actually want to sort are fairly rare.
>
>
> While I'm sure it's not common, I've seen a couple of ten-million tuple
> tables having a URL column as primary key where 98% of the entries begin
> with 'http://www.'
>
> So, that exact scenario is out there.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-08-07 21:52:17 | Re: A worst case for qsort |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-08-07 21:33:10 | Re: A worst case for qsort |