| From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? |
| Date: | 2005-10-05 09:41:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20051005094125.GW2241@mathom.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 06:19:41PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>COPY TO /dev/null WITH binary
>13MB/s 55% user 45% system (ergo, CPU bound)
[snip]
>the most expensive. But it does point out that the whole process is
>probably CPU bound more than anything else.
Note that 45% of that cpu usage is system--which is where IO overhead
would end up being counted. Until you profile where you system time is
going it's premature to say it isn't an IO problem.
Mike Stone
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Stone | 2005-10-05 09:43:15 | Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-10-05 09:09:20 | Re: Query in SQL statement |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Stone | 2005-10-05 09:43:15 | Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-10-05 09:09:20 | Re: Query in SQL statement |