Greetings, * Юрий Соколов (funny.fal...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> Maybe it's a stupid question. But would we still want to have this after > >> the change? These should be just specializations of the template version > >> imo. > > "generic" version operates on bytes, and it will be a bit hard to combine > it with > templated version. Not impossible, but it will look ugly.
If that's the case then does it really make sense to make this change..? > In attach fixed qsort_template version. > And version for compactify_tuples with bucket_sort and templated qsort. While having the patch is handy, I'm not seeing any performance numbers on this version, and I imagine others watching this thread are also wondering about things like a test run that just uses the specialized qsort_itemIds() without the bucketsort. Are you planning to post some updated numbers and/or an updated test case that hopefully shows best/worst case with this change? Would be good to get that on a couple of platforms too, if possible, since we've seen that the original benchmarks weren't able to be consistently repeated across different platforms. Without someone doing that leg-work, this doesn't seem like it'll be moving forward. Marking as Waiting on Author. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
