Re: qsort, once again
Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
From: "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, "Jerry Sievers" <jerry@jerrysievers.com>
Date: 2006-03-16T20:32:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 3/16/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > So we still have a problem of software archaeology: who added the > insertion sort switch to the NetBSD version, and on what grounds? AFAICS, the insertion sort was added in BSD 4.4-lite and was inherited by NetBSD in CVS version 1.1.1.2. The previous version in NetBSD (before 4.4-lite) also included an insertion sort with the comment: /* * Knuth, Vol. 3, page 116, Algorithm Q, step b, argues that a single pass * of straight insertion sort after partitioning is complete is better than * sorting each small partition as it is created. This isn't correct in this * implementation because comparisons require at least one (and often two) * function calls and are likely to be the dominating expense of the sort. * Doing a final insertion sort does more comparisons than are necessary * because it compares the "edges" and medians of the partitions which are * known to be already sorted. * * This is also the reasoning behind selecting a small THRESH value (see * Knuth, page 122, equation 26), since the quicksort algorithm does less * comparisons than the insertion sort. */ -- Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect EnterpriseDB Corporation 732.331.1324