| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sort time |
| Date: | 2002-11-17 17:29:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20021117092657.L38418-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, pginfo wrote:
> > On my not terribly powerful or memory filled box, I got a time of about
> > 16s after going through a couple iterations of raising sort_mem and
> > watching if it made temp files (which is probably a good idea to check as
> > well). The data size ended up being in the vicinity of 100 meg in my
> > case.
>
> The time is very good!
> It is very good idea to watch the temp files.
> I started the sort_mem to 32 mb (it is 256 on the production system)
> and I see 3 temp files. The first is ~ 1.8 mb. The second is ~55 mb and the last is ~150
> mb.
As a note, the same data loaded into a non-"C" locale database took about
42 seconds on the same machine, approximately 2.5x as long.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-17 20:56:13 | Re: Sort time |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-11-17 08:18:22 | Re: Sort time |