On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> wrote:
On 25/02/15 00:32, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 23/02/15 16:40, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> On 22.2.2015 22:30, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >>> You should try it with the data fully sorted like this, but with one >>> tiny difference: The very last tuple is out of order. How does that >>> look? > > If this case is actually important, a merge-sort can take > significant advantage of the partial order:
Presumably it is not, as nobody commented on the alleged 20 or 30x speedup.
Does it always perform mergesort instead of quicksort when enabled? Seems like the case for a hybrid sort (like timsort). I know there was some talk to replace quicksort with timsort back in 2012 but it was a deadend at the time.
