> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 10:41 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Qingqing Zhou; Bruce Momjian; Luke Lonergan; Neil Conway; pgsql-
> hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Which qsort is used
>
> "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:
> >> I've still got a problem with these checks; I think they are a net
> >> waste of cycles on average.
>
> > The benchmarks say that they (order checks) are a good idea on
average
> > for ordered data, random data, and partly ordered data.
>
> There are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks ;-)
>
> The problem with citing a benchmark for this discussion is that a
> benchmark can't tell you anything about real-world probabilities;
> it only tells you about the probabilities occuring in the benchmark
> case. You need to make the case that the benchmark reflects the
> real world, which you didn't.
>
> > If you trace the algorithms in a debugger you will be surprised at
how
> > often the partitions are ordered, even with random sets as input.
>
> Well, I do agree that checking for orderedness on small partitions
would
> succeed more often than on larger partitions or the whole file --- but
> the code-as-given checks all the way down. Moreover, the argument
given
> for spending these cycles is that insertion sort sucks on
reverse-order
> input ... where "sucks" means that it spends O(N^2) time. But it
spends
> O(N^2) in the average case, too.
I agree that in general these checks are not important and they
complicate what is a simple and elegant algorithm.
The cases where the checks are important (highly ordered data sets) are
rare and so the value added is minimal.
I am actually quite impressed with the excellence of Bentley's sort out
of the box. It's definitely the best library implementation of a sort I
have seen.
