Re: Highly Efficient Custom Sorting
| От | Eliot Gable |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Highly Efficient Custom Sorting |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTimZISmcXkPN059pz5bx-TXKVOnm6iuJ4y4qQedu@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Highly Efficient Custom Sorting (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Highly Efficient Custom Sorting
Re: Highly Efficient Custom Sorting |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
Yes, I have two pl/pgsql functions. They take a prepared set of data (just the row id of the original results, plus the particular priority and weight fields) and they return the same set of data with an extra field called "order" which contains a numerical order to apply when sorting the rows. One function uses the priority information to break everything into priority groups, then calls the other function for each priority group. Each time it gets results back from the inner function, it returns that set of results. When it has looped through all priority groups, then it returns the full built-up set of results back to the calling function.
The pl/pgsql functions implementing the sort are as optimized as they are likely to get. I don't want to waste my time trying to further optimize pl/pgsql functions that are never going to be as fast and efficient as I need. I would rather spend that time re-writing it in C and get sorting back to <1ms.
I guess the real question is, is a generic C sorting function my only real alternative? Is there anything else that would allow me to sort things faster than pl/pgsql functions? For example, if I used pl/perl, would I be able to expect considerably better performance for sorting than using pl/pgsql? What about other supported languages? If I can get close to 1ms sorting performance without resorting to C, it would save me much time and frustration.
--
Eliot Gable
"We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors: we borrow it from our children." ~David Brower
"I decided the words were too conservative for me. We're not borrowing from our children, we're stealing from them--and it's not even considered to be a crime." ~David Brower
"Esse oportet ut vivas, non vivere ut edas." (Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat.) ~Marcus Tullius Cicero
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> writes:I'm guessing from tea leaves, but the impression I got from Eliot's
> On 02/07/10 08:46, Eliot Gable wrote:
>> So, the bottom line is, I need a faster way to do this sorting.
> You haven't showed us how you're doing it at the moment, so it's awfully
> hard to comment usefully on possible approaches.
description is that he's using plpgsql functions as sort comparators.
It's not surprising that that sucks performance-wise compared to having
the equivalent logic in C/C++ functions used as comparators on the
client side. plpgsql is no speed demon. Best fix might be to code the
comparators as C functions on the server side.
regards, tom lane
--
Eliot Gable
"We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors: we borrow it from our children." ~David Brower
"I decided the words were too conservative for me. We're not borrowing from our children, we're stealing from them--and it's not even considered to be a crime." ~David Brower
"Esse oportet ut vivas, non vivere ut edas." (Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat.) ~Marcus Tullius Cicero
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: