Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
Date: 2005-10-03 21:16:15
Message-ID: 200510031416.15620.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Jeff,

> > Nope, LOTS of testing, at OSDL, GreenPlum and Sun. For comparison, A
> > Big-Name Proprietary Database doesn't get much more than that either.
>
> I find this claim very suspicious. I get single-threaded reads in
> excess of 1GB/sec with XFS and > 250MB/sec with ext3.

Database reads? Or raw FS reads? It's not the same thing.

Also, we're talking *write speed* here, not read speed.

I also find *your* claim suspicious, since there's no way XFS is 300% faster
than ext3 for the *general* case.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Peacetree 2005-10-03 21:18:45 Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-10-03 20:48:40 Re: Vacuum Full Analyze Stalled

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Peacetree 2005-10-03 21:18:45 Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
Previous Message Jeffrey W. Baker 2005-10-03 20:42:31 Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?