On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Jeremy Harris <j...@wizmail.org> wrote: > Yes; there seemed no advantage to any additional complexity. > The merge consistently performs fewer comparisons than the > quicksort, on random input - and many fewer if there are > any sorted (or reverse-sorted) sections. However, it also > consistently takes slightly longer (a few percent). I was > unable to chase this down but assume it to be a cacheing > effect. So I don't currently think it should replace the > current sort for all use.
It's definitely caching effects. That's a very important consideration here. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
