| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
| Date: | 2006-05-26 20:41:51 |
| Message-ID: | 29905.1148676111@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> There is a noticeable rise in sort time with increasing work_mem, but
> that needs to be offset from the benefit that in-general comes from
> using a large Heap for the sort. With the data you're using that always
> looks like a loss, but that isn't true with all input data orderings.
Yeah, these are all the exact same test data, right? We need a bit more
variety in the test cases before drawing any sweeping conclusions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-26 21:04:26 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-26 20:21:44 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |