From: | Yang Zhang <yanghatespam(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Frank Heikens <frankheikens(at)mac(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sorting performance vs. MySQL |
Date: | 2010-02-22 20:05:17 |
Message-ID: | 9066fa251002221205w193cf9dej8606b1ae3d90a92d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Frank Heikens <frankheikens(at)mac(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Op 22 feb 2010, om 20:28 heeft Yang Zhang het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If your work-mem is too low there's a good chance that Postgres has to
>>>>> use your disks for sorting, which will obviously be quite slow.
>>>>
>>>> Relative to the non-terminating 80-minute-so-far sort, Unix sort runs
>>>> much faster (on the order of several minutes).
>>>
>>> Make sure your index does fit into memory, what's the size of the index?
>>
>> How might I find out the size and whether it's being fit in memory?
>
> SELECT pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('i_transactionid'));
pg_size_pretty
----------------
1080 MB
(1 row)
--
Yang Zhang
http://www.mit.edu/~y_z/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2010-02-22 20:08:46 | Re: Missing clog, PITR |
Previous Message | Andreas Kretschmer | 2010-02-22 19:59:00 | Re: Info about concurrent sequential scans |