Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Compression and on-disk sorting

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
Date: 2006-05-26 16:35:36
Message-ID: 26799.1148661336@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> Something else worth mentioning is that sort performance is worse with
> larger work_mem for all cases except the old HEAD, prior to the
> tuplesort.c changes. It looks like whatever was done to fix that will
> need to be adjusted/rethought pending the outcome of using compression.

Please clarify.  What are you comparing here exactly, and what cases did
you test?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-05-26 16:35:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BEGIN inside transaction should be an error
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-05-26 16:31:08
Subject: Re: Compression and on-disk sorting

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group