Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1159895004.6242.11.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris
Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 10:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I have no particular desire to introduce a version number check until we > have to. If you can show that the newer versions have a qsort that > substantially *out-performs* ours Are there any platform-local variants of qsort() that substantially outperform our implementation? (I don't remember hearing of one, but I might have missed it.) Given the time that has been spent working around the braindamaged behavior of qsort() on various platforms, I would be more inclined to *always* use our qsort() instead of the platform's version. That way we'd get the same behavior across all platforms, and we can at least verify that our implementation behaves reasonably for the special cases we're interested in (presorted input, many-equal-keys, etc.), and doesn't do crazy stuff like randomly switch to merge sort for certain inputs. -Neil
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: