Re: Sorting performance vs. MySQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Yang Zhang <yanghatespam(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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 20:44:23
Message-ID: 1079.1266871463@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Yang Zhang <yanghatespam(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> the speed depends on setting of working_memory. Try to increase a working_memory

> It's already at
> 20000kB

According to your original posting, you're trying to sort something like
a gigabyte of data. 20MB is peanuts. I wouldn't recommend increasing
the value across-the-board, but setting it to several hundred meg for
this particular query might help. How much RAM in your machine anyway?

Also, the fact that mysql is faster suggests that having an index does help.
Possibly the data is nearly ordered by transactionid, in which case an
indexscan would not have random-access problems and would be much faster
than an explicit sort.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2010-02-22 20:45:13 Re: Sorting performance vs. MySQL
Previous Message Yeb Havinga 2010-02-22 20:37:55 Re: Sorting performance vs. MySQL