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

in-memory sorting

From: Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: in-memory sorting
Date: 2010-08-19 05:23:52
Message-ID: AANLkTikp=KrFmUSrs+z7BQvbFnuyM=0KjPRKA2EbxDKY@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
I've got this explain: http://explain.depesz.com/s/Xh9

And these settings:
default_statistics_target = 50 # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
maintenance_work_mem = 1GB # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
constraint_exclusion = on # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9 # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
effective_cache_size = 36GB # sam
work_mem = 288MB # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
wal_buffers = 8MB # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
#checkpoint_segments = 16 # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
checkpoint_segments = 30 # sam
shared_buffers = 11GB # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
max_connections = 80 # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
cpu_tuple_cost = 0.0030                 # sam
cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.0010           # sam
cpu_operator_cost = 0.0005              # sam
#random_page_cost = 2.0                 # sam

I'm not understanding why it is sorting on disk if it would fit within
a work_mem segment - by a fairly wide margin.  Is there something else
I can do to get that sort to happen in memory?

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Samuel GendlerDate: 2010-08-19 05:45:58
Subject: Re: in-memory sorting
Previous:From: s anwarDate: 2010-08-18 22:59:52
Subject: Re: Copy performance issues

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