Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:58:47 -0800
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: A qsort template
Message-ID: <20210311185847.zwb2rf3n4wzelkba@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: 
 <CA+hUKGJ2-eaDqAum5bxhpMNhvuJmRDZxB_Tow0n-gse+HG0Yig@mail.gmail.com>
 <0F9ECBA9-1DF2-4C38-BB58-B17EEE6C7B3A@yesql.se>
 <CA+hUKGJhOtjQH+wjCodtJzHAFCAPYyt6Qm9E1mUoJph42qo1hg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+hUKGJhOtjQH+wjCodtJzHAFCAPYyt6Qm9E1mUoJph42qo1hg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210311185847.zwb2rf3n4wzelkba%40alap3.anarazel.de>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

I wish we had the same for bsearch... :)


On 2021-03-03 17:17:13 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> As for which cases are actually worth specialising, I've attached the
> example that Andres mentioned earlier; it seems like a reasonable
> candidate to go ahead and commit too, but I realised that I'd
> forgotten to attach it earlier.

> From 4cec5cb9a2e0c50726b7337fb8221281e155c4cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:47:28 +1300
> Subject: [PATCH] Specialize checkpointer sort functions.
> 
> When sorting a potentially large number of dirty buffers, the
> checkpointer can benefit from a faster sort routine.  One reported
> improvement on a large buffer pool system was 1.4s -> 0.6s.
> 
> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGJ2-eaDqAum5bxhpMNhvuJmRDZxB_Tow0n-gse%2BHG0Yig%40mail.gmail.com

Looks good to me.

Greetings,

Andres Freund