From: | Frank Heikens <frankheikens(at)mac(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Yang Zhang <yanghatespam(at)gmail(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 19:15:04 |
Message-ID: | C57F96F3-9A99-471E-862B-64C565CF2DA3@mac.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Op 22 feb 2010, om 20:07 heeft Yang Zhang het volgende geschreven:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Alban Hertroys
> <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2010, at 19:35, Yang Zhang wrote:
>>
>>> I also wouldn't have imagined an external merge-sort as being very
>>
>>
>> Where's that external merge-sort coming from? Can you show an
>> explain analyze?
>
> I just assumed that the "Sort" in the EXPLAIN output meant an external
> merge-sort, given that the table has over 50 million tuples and is
> over 3GB, *and* there is no index on the sort key:
>
> tpcc=# explain select * from metarelcloud_transactionlog order by
> transactionid;
> QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sort (cost=8408637.34..8534662.95 rows=50410244 width=17)
> Sort Key: a.transactionid
> -> Seq Scan on metarelcloud_transactionlog a
> (cost=0.00..925543.44 rows=50410244 width=17)
> (3 rows)
>
> Anyway, I added the INDEX as suggested by Frank, but it's been 20
> minutes and it's still running. With the index, EXPLAIN says:
>
> tpcc=# explain select * from metarelcloud_transactionlog order by
> transactionid;
> QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Index Scan using i_transactionid on metarelcloud_transactionlog
> (cost=0.00..4453076.81 rows=50410164 width=44)
> (1 row)
>
Use EXPLAIN ANALYZE to see how the query is executed, gives you more
details.
>> 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?
> --
> Yang Zhang
> http://www.mit.edu/~y_z/
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Frank Heikens
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2010-02-22 19:22:28 | Info about concurrent sequential scans |
Previous Message | Yang Zhang | 2010-02-22 19:08:24 | Re: Sorting performance vs. MySQL |