>>
>> [ shrug... ] If you are bothered by that, get off your duff and provide
>> the function for your datatype. But it's certainly going to be in the
>> noise for btree index usage, and I submit that query parsing/setup
>> involves quite a lot of syscache lookups already. I think that as a
>> performance objection, the above is nonsensical. (And I would also
>> comment that your proposal with a handle is going to involve a table
>> search that's at least as expensive as a syscache lookup.)
>
> Agreed. Doing something once and doing something in the sort loop are
> two different overheads.
>
> I am excited by this major speedup Peter Geoghegan has found. Postgres
> doesn't have parallel query, which is often used for sorting, so we are
> already behind some of the databases are compared against. Getting this
> speedup is definitely going to help us. And I do like the generic
> nature of where we are heading!
>
Oracle has not or had not parallel sort too, and I have a reports so
Oracle does sort faster then PostgreSQL (but without any numbers). So
any solution is welcome
Regards
Pavel
