X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9C09DCA0B for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:02:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92587-07 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:02:22 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2629DC886 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:02:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from trofast.ipv6.sesse.net ([2001:700:300:dc03:20e:cff:fe36:a766] helo=trofast.sesse.net) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1F9uwq-00070k-VV for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:02:17 +0100 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1F9uwt-0001Rg-00 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:02:19 +0100 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:02:19 +0100 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index Message-ID: <20060217020219.GE5273@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060215194635.03b55da0@earthlink.net> <21615.1140052893@sss.pgh.pa.us> <7.0.1.0.2.20060215223710.03a7c618@earthlink.net> <20060216113522.GA3461@uio.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20060216071053.0385a1a8@earthlink.net> <43F481CD.2010509@logix-tt.com> <43F4A7D8.4050907@modgraph-usa.com> <29277.1140110108@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1140128256.9076.254.camel@archimedes> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.14.3 on a x86_64 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.08 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080] X-Spam-Score: 0.08 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/270 X-Sequence-Number: 17256 On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 12:05:23AM +0100, PFC wrote: > I would have said a 64 bit int, but it's the same idea. However it > won't work for floats, which is a pity, because floats fit in 64 bits. Actually, you can compare IEEE floats directly as ints, as long as they're positive. (If they can be both positive and negative, you need to take special care of the sign bit first, but it's still doable.) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/