From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: not exactly a bug report, but surprising behaviour |
Date: | 2003-02-05 07:34:32 |
Message-ID: | 22981.1044430472@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I'm watching this query I'm working on now drive the cpu to 100% for 6+ hours
> with virtually no I/O. And I think it's the best I can do. All the times is
> being spent moving bits around from one place to another.
It would be interesting to see a gprof profile of that.
> It occurs to me that it's possible postgres is doing this already at a lower
> level of abstraction.
Yes, tuplesort.c has heard of pushing pointers around rather than
copying records. I wonder though whether data is being pushed out to
kernel disk buffers and then back in again --- do you have sort_mem
set large enough? Another likely theory is that the interface layers
needed to access datatype-specific comparison routines are chewing the
cycles. Need facts not speculation to know where the bottleneck is...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-05 07:44:26 | Re: UPDATE slow |
Previous Message | John Smith | 2003-02-05 06:41:34 | Re: UPDATE slow |