Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
Cc: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
Date: 2005-09-27 16:15:06
Message-ID: 4339700A.2030803@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Ron,

I've somehow missed part of this thread, which is a shame since this is
an area of primary concern for me.

Your suggested algorithm seems to be designed to relieve I/O load by
making more use of the CPU. (if I followed it correctly). However,
that's not PostgreSQL's problem; currently for us external sort is a
*CPU-bound* operation, half of which is value comparisons. (oprofiles
available if anyone cares)

So we need to look, instead, at algorithms which make better use of
work_mem to lower CPU activity, possibly even at the expense of I/O.

--Josh Berkus

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2005-09-27 16:16:07 Re: Making pgxs builds work with a relocated installation
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-09-27 15:59:52 Re: Database file compatability

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dario 2005-09-27 16:21:07 Re: VACUUM FULL vs CLUSTER
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2005-09-27 15:21:37 Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?