Re: A worst case for qsort

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 21:23:23
Message-ID: CAKddOFDunnmZThbw0DGRvrs3hEyB7TULmKdwr4cd4D=K=+7EOQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G Johnston 2014-08-07 21:26:52 Re: Fixed redundant i18n strings in json
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-08-07 21:06:51 Re: A worst case for qsort