| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table |
| Date: | 1999-11-01 07:10:27 |
| Message-ID: | 199911010710.QAA26682@srapc451.sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> 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.
Done.
32:06 (with 80MB sort memory)
CPU time was 5:11.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 1999-11-01 07:23:40 | Log on separate disk? |
| Previous Message | Andrij Korud | 1999-11-01 07:03:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Trigger aborted on error |