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 1DC7F9DC85A for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:08:55 -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 32391-05 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:08:56 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from server.gpdnet.co.uk (gpdnet.plus.com [212.56.100.243]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E355D9DC803 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:08:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [192.168.1.2]) by server.gpdnet.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96353AAB69; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:00:30 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43F3A182.4010608@gpdnet.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:47:46 +0000 From: Gary Doades User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Strange Create Index behaviour References: <43F38867.6010701@gpdnet.co.uk> <19510.1140036968@sss.pgh.pa.us> <19779.1140038874@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <19779.1140038874@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.12 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120] X-Spam-Score: 0.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/225 X-Sequence-Number: 17211 Tom Lane wrote: > > So it sure looks like this script does expose a problem on BSD-derived > qsorts. Curiously, the case that's much the worst for me is the third > in the script, while the shortest time is the first case, which was slow > for Gary. So I'd venture that the *BSD code has been tweaked somewhere > along the way, in a manner that moves the problem around without really > fixing it. (Anyone want to compare the actual FreeBSD source to what > we have?) > > It's really interesting to see a case where port/qsort is radically > worse than other qsorts ... unless we figure that out and fix it, > I think the idea of using port/qsort everywhere has just taken a > major hit. > More specifically to BSD, is there any way I can use a non-BSD qsort for building Postresql server? Regards, Gary.