Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Itagaki Takahiro
Тема Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Дата
Msg-id AANLkTi=mTyE_jSL2LZm0MWB4QXesHGyKv=07mRPiS5s-@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Ответы Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch  (Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it>)
Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> I see a consistent
>> ~10% advantage for the sequential scan clusters.
>
> 10% is nothing.  I was expecting this patch would give an order of
> magnitude of improvement or somethine like that in the worst cases of
> the current code (highly unsorted input)

Yes. It should be x10 faster than ordinary method in the worst cases.

I have a performance result of pg_reorg, that performs as same as
the patch. It shows 16 times faster than the old CLUSTER. In addition,
it was slow if not fragmented. (So, it should not be "consistent".)
http://reorg.projects.postgresql.org/

--
Itagaki Takahiro


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement
Следующее
От: Darren Duncan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement