On 31/12/13 01:41, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 12/29/2013 08:24 AM, David Rowley wrote:
>> If it was possible to devise some way to reuse any
>> previous tuplesortstate perhaps just inventing a reset method which
>> clears out tuples, then we could see performance exceed the standard
>> seqscan -> sort. The code the way it is seems to lookup the sort
>> functions from the syscache for each group then allocate some sort
>> space, so quite a bit of time is also spent in palloc0() and pfree()
>>
>> If it was not possible to do this then maybe adding a cost to the number
>> of sort groups would be better so that the optimization is skipped if
>> there are too many sort groups.
>
> It should be possible. I have hacked a quick proof of concept for
> reusing the tuplesort state. Can you try it and see if the performance
> regression is fixed by this?
>
> One thing which have to be fixed with my patch is that we probably want
> to close the tuplesort once we have returned the last tuple from
> ExecSort().
>
> I have attached my patch and the incremental patch on Alexander's patch.
How does this work in combination with randomAccess ?
--
Thanks, Jeremy
