From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: killing processes |
Date: | 2009-07-21 18:18:24 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150907211118y4e973383s35aa142f2b604f87@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Kerr<dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 01:13:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> - David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> writes:
> - I tried it on a table with 899991 random values. It took frickin'
> - forever, but seemed to be willing to respond to cancels anywhere
> - along the line. I'm not sure why you're seeing differently.
>
> Hehe, yeah. For me I let it run 10 min and hit ^C so maybe i just
> hit it at a bad place.
>
> - (The reason it takes forever is that numeric is a variable-width
> - type, and access into a varwidth array is O(n), so the sorting
> - step you've got here is O(n^2). It might help to use unnest()
> - instead of this handmade version of it ...)
>
> unnest() is 8.4 only, right?
There is an undocumented version in earlier versions that's quite similar:
information_schema._pg_expandarray (it's an sql function, not C, so
you should be able examine the source in order to roll your own if you
need to).
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-07-21 18:27:19 | Re: commercial adaptation of postgres |
Previous Message | Chris Spotts | 2009-07-21 18:01:43 | Re: killing processes |