On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> I see a consistent >>> ~10% advantage for the sequential scan clusters. >> >> 10% is nothing. I was expecting this patch would give an order of >> magnitude of improvement or somethine like that in the worst cases of >> the current code (highly unsorted input) > > Yes. It should be x10 faster than ordinary method in the worst cases. > > I have a performance result of pg_reorg, that performs as same as > the patch. It shows 16 times faster than the old CLUSTER. In addition, > it was slow if not fragmented. (So, it should not be "consistent".) > http://reorg.projects.postgresql.org/
Can you reproduce that with this patch? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
