I wrote: > FWIW, I've been suspicious of that pre-sorted check since the day it > went in. Bentley was my faculty adviser for awhile in grad school, > and I know him to be *way* too smart to have missed anything as simple > as that. But I didn't have hard evidence on which to object to it > at the time, and indeed testing seemed to say it was a good idea: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18732.1142967...@sss.pgh.pa.us
BTW, after further review --- one thing that seems a little fishy is that that test scaffolding made glibc's qsort look pretty good; which was at variance with our previous experience, in which our version of qsort seemed to dominate glibc's even before we took out the dubious "swap_cnt" code, cf thread at http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/pine.lnx.4.58.0512121138080.18...@eon.cs So there is definitely some room to argue that B&M's test scaffolding doesn't match up with our real-world workloads. But before tinkering too much with that code, it'd be good to understand why not, and to have a test case we trust more. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
