Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table

>Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> 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.
>
>I've committed some changes to tuplesort.c to try to improve
>performance. Would you try your test case again with current
>sources? Also, please see if you can record the CPU time
>consumed by the backend while doing the sort.

It's getting better, but still slower than before.

52:50 (with 8MB sort memory)

ps shows 7:15 was consumed by the backend. I'm going to test with 80MB
sort memory.
--
Tatsuo Ishii