Doug McNaught wrote: > I think most vendors do a pretty good job. Don't forget, optimizing a > routine like that depends a lot on the cache size and behavior of the > CPU and other architecture-dependent stuff.
>> qsort() is a great sort for very random data, when data is mostly in the >> correct order, it is very bad. Perhaps replacing it with an alternate sort >> would improve performance in general. > Actually, the C standard says nothing about what algorithm should be > used for qsort(); it's simply supposed to be a fast in-memory sort. > The qsort() name is just a historical artifact. Perhaps so, but maybe that is the issue with Solaris, it actually may use qsort algorithm. I am not too sure how one would optimize the qsort() API on a platform basis. The sorting algorithm uses a callback function, this precludes any meaningful optimization. Yea, you can play with memory page sizes, and so on, but you still have to do a function call for some multiple of the number of elements in the array. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
