| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table |
| Date: | 1999-11-30 04:11:15 |
| Message-ID: | 19242.943935075@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Was this resolved?
I tweaked the code some, and am waiting for retest results from Tatsuo.
I think the poor results he is seeing might be platform-dependent; on
my machine current code seems to be faster than 6.5.* ... but on the
other hand I don't have the disk space to run a multi-gig sort test.
Can anyone else take the time to compare speed of large sorts between
6.5.* and current code?
regards, tom lane
>> It worked with 2GB+ table but was much slower than before.
>>
>> Before(with 8MB sort memory): 22 minutes
>>
>> After(with 8MB sort memory): 1 hour and 5 minutes
>> After(with 80MB sort memory): 42 minutes.
>> --
>> Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-11-30 04:16:40 | Re: [HACKERS] IN clause and INTERSECT not behaving as expected |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-11-30 04:03:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pg_ctl |