On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 3:21 PM Ankit Kumar Pandey <itsankitkp@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 26/01/23 07:40, David Rowley wrote:
> > We might want to look at 1) Expanding > > on what 69749243 did and considering if we want sort specialisations > > that are specifically for 1 column and another set for multi-columns. > > The multi-column ones don't need to re-compare key[0] again. 2) > > Sorting in smaller batches that better fit into CPU cache. Both of > > these ideas would require a large amount of testing and discussion. > > For #1 we're considering other specialisations, for example NOT NULL, > > and we don't want to explode the number of specialisations we have to > > compile into the binary. > > Yes, 1 & 2 needs to be addressed before going ahead with this patch. > Do we any have ongoing thread with #1 and #2?
I recently brought up this older thread (mostly about #1), partly because of the issues discovered above, and partly because I hope to make progress on it before feature freeze (likely early April):
