Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index
- From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
- To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: Gary Doades <gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:12:52 -0500
- Message-id: <1140055972.31672.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <text/plain>
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 18:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > It seems clear that our qsort.c is doing a pretty awful job of picking > qsort pivots, while glibc is mostly managing not to make that mistake. > I haven't looked at the glibc code yet to see what they are doing > differently. glibc qsort is actually merge sort, so I'm not surprised it avoids this problem. -Neil
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [HACKERS] qsort again
- From: Florian Weimer
- Re: [HACKERS] qsort again
- References:
- Strange Create Index behaviour
- From: Gary Doades
- Re: Strange Create Index behaviour
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: Strange Create Index behaviour
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: Strange Create Index behaviour
- From: Gary Doades
- qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index behaviour)
- From: Tom Lane
- Strange Create Index behaviour
- Prev by Date: Re: [HACKERS] qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index
- Next by Date: Re: qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index
- Previous by thread: Re: qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index
- Next by thread: Re: [HACKERS] qsort again
- Indexes: