Re: Re: Using quicksort and a merge step to significantly improve on tuplesort's single run "external sort" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Re: Using quicksort and a merge step to significantly improve on tuplesort's single run "external sort"
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYm4eUNfmo-N7jFZR9t7T+p6bk2vRAVnMkHZZTsbznH7w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: Using quicksort and a merge step to significantly improve on tuplesort's single run "external sort"  (Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> wrote:
> On 31/07/15 18:31, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> wrote:
>>> Heapification is O(n) already, whether siftup (existing) or down.
>>
>> That's not my impression, or what Wikipedia says.  Source?
>
> Measurements done last year:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52F35462.3030306@wizmail.org
> (spreadsheet attachment)
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52F40CE9.1070509@wizmail.org
> (measurement procedure and spreadsheet explanation)

I don't think that running benchmarks is the right way to establish
the asymptotic runtime of an algorithm.  I mean, if you test
quicksort, it will run in much less than O(n^2) time on almost any
input.  But that does not mean that the worst-case run time is
anything other than O(n^2).

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: RLS restrictive hook policies
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Using quicksort and a merge step to significantly improve on tuplesort's single run "external sort"