On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:44:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> select count(*) from
> (select random()::text from generate_series(1,1000000) order by 1) ss;
> ...
> postgres=# select count(*) from (select random() from
> generate_series(1,1000000) order by 1) ss;
I'm wondering whether 'order by 1' is representative of a real sort, from
the perspective of benchmarks.
I wonder why 'order by CONSTANT' might not be safe to optimize away as
no sort at all?
For sort functions that incrementally improve the sort order, I would
expect 'order by 1' to be a worst case scenario. Is that the intention?
Or is qsort unaffected by this use?
Cheers,
mark
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
