From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: external sort performance |
Date: | 2011-11-17 17:55:20 |
Message-ID: | 27243.1321552520@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> writes:
> This is on PG 8.4.8 on Linux, 16GB of "real" RAM.
> Most recently, I enabled trace_sort, disabled hash aggregation[1], and
> set a large work_mem (normally very small, in this case I tried
> anything from 8MB to 256MB. I even tried 1GB and 2GB).
FWIW, I think hash aggregation is your best shot at getting reasonable
performance. Sorting 175GB of data is going to hurt no matter what.
If the grouped table amounts to 5GB, I wouldn't have expected the hash
table to be more than maybe 2-3X that size (although this does depend on
what aggregates you're running...). Letting the hash aggregation have
all your RAM might be the best answer.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Nelson | 2011-11-17 19:32:26 | Re: external sort performance |
Previous Message | Craig James | 2011-11-17 17:28:15 | Re: external sort performance |