Re: [HACKERS] sorting big tables :(

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: miker(at)scifair(dot)acadiau(dot)ca (Michael Richards)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] sorting big tables :(
Date: 1998-05-16 00:00:29
Message-ID: 199805160000.UAA24579@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> I think soon people are going to start calling me Mr. Big...Tables...
>
> I have a big table. 40M rows.
> On the disk, it's size is:
> 2,090,369,024 bytes. So 2 gigs. On a 9 gig drive I can't sort this table.
> How should one decide based on table size how much room is needed?
>
> Also, this simple table consisting of only 2 int4 values is the exact size
> of an equally sized table consisting of only one int2. There seems to be
> too much overhead here. I realise there are extra things that have to be
> saved, but I am not getting the size/performance I had hoped for... I am
> starting to think this segment of the database would be better implemented
> without a dbms because it is not expected to change at all...
>

It is taking so much disk space because it is using a TAPE sorting
method, by breaking the file into tape chunks and sorting in pieces, the
merging.

Can you try increasing your postgres -S parameter to some huge amount like 32MB
and see if that helps? It should.

i.e.

postmaster -i -B 400 $DEBUG -o '-F -S 1024' "$@" >server.log 2>&1

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michal Mosiewicz 1998-05-16 00:08:27 Async I/O
Previous Message Michael Richards 1998-05-15 23:09:31 sorting big tables :(