On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Jeremy Harris <j...@wizmail.org> wrote:
> On 25/02/15 00:32, Jeremy Harris wrote: > > On 23/02/15 16:40, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> On 22.2.2015 22:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >>> You should try it with the data fully sorted like this, but with one > >>> tiny difference: The very last tuple is out of order. How does that > >>> look? > > > > If this case is actually important, a merge-sort can take > > significant advantage of the partial order: > > Presumably it is not, as nobody commented > on the alleged 20 or 30x speedup. > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > Does it always perform mergesort instead of quicksort when enabled? Seems like the case for a hybrid sort (like timsort). I know there was some talk to replace quicksort with timsort back in 2012 but it was a deadend at the time.
