| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Gould <dg(at)illustra(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, miker(at)scifair(dot)acadiau(dot)ca, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] sorting big tables :( |
| Date: | 1998-05-17 16:35:45 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.3.96.980517133417.580R-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 17 May 1998, David Gould wrote:
> I think this is a bug. There is no reason to use more than a little bit over
> three times the input size for a sort. This is: input file, run files, output
> file. If we are not able to sort a 2 gig table on a 9 gig partition we need
> to fix it. I suspect we have a bug in the implementation, but perhaps we
> need to look at our choice of algorithm. In any case this problem should go
> on the todo list.
Have to agree here...
Micheal...if you were to dump that table into a text file, how big
would it turn out to be? Much smaller then 2gig, no? Then perform a Unix
sort on that, how long would that take? Then reload the data...
Needing more then 7gig to sort a 2gig table sounds slightly off to
me as well :(
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-05-18 04:25:19 | Query cancel and OOB data |
| Previous Message | David Gould | 1998-05-17 08:18:49 | Re: [HACKERS] sorting big tables :( |