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

Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: stange(at)rentec(dot)com, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Joshua Marsh <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: 2005-11-24 09:11:36
Message-ID: 438583C8.4050809@paradise.net.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Mark,
> 
>
> It would be nice to put some tracers into the executor and see where the
> time is going.  I'm also curious about the impact of the new 8.1 virtual
> tuples in reducing the executor overhead.  In this case my bet's on the agg
> node itself, what do you think?
>

Yeah - it's pretty clear that the count aggregate is fairly expensive 
wrt cpu - However, I am not sure if all agg nodes suffer this way (guess 
we could try a trivial aggregate that does nothing for all tuples bar 
the last and just reports the final value it sees).

Cheers

Mark


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2005-11-24 09:22:03
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Previous:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2005-11-24 08:53:16
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (

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