Re: Re: Increasing work_mem and shared_buffers on Postgres 9.2 significantly slows down queries

From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Gunnar Nick Bluth <gunnar(dot)bluth(at)pro-open(dot)de>, Petr Praus <petr(at)praus(dot)net>, Marcos Ortiz <mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Increasing work_mem and shared_buffers on Postgres 9.2 significantly slows down queries
Date: 2012-11-05 17:40:31
Message-ID: CAGTBQpbuF0JHdure3N=UKFRLf8WW_hnQOKqCPgOK4UZ1pY1zQg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> In my experience when doing sorts in isolation, having more work_mem
>>> is a bad thing, unless it enables you to remove a layer of
>>> tape-merging. I always blamed it on the L1/L2 etc. levels of caching.
>>
>> Blame it on quicksort, which is quite cache-unfriendly.
>
> The observation applies to heap sort.

Well, heapsort is worse, but quicksort is also quite bad.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2012-11-05 17:59:12 Re: Re: Increasing work_mem and shared_buffers on Postgres 9.2 significantly slows down queries
Previous Message John R Pierce 2012-11-05 17:30:30 Re: [PERFORM] out of memory