| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
| Date: | 2005-10-05 10:32:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1128508373.8561.28.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On K, 2005-10-05 at 05:43 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 12:43:10AM +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >Just FYI, I run a count(*) on a 15.6GB table on a lightly loaded db and
> >it run in 163 sec. (Dual opteron 2.6GHz, 6GB RAM, 6 x 74GB 15k disks in
> >RAID10, reiserfs). A little less than 100MB sec.
>
> And none of that 15G table is in the 6G RAM?
I believe so, as there had been another query running for some time,
doing a select form a 50GB table.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-10-05 10:49:17 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
| Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2005-10-05 09:43:15 | Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-10-05 10:49:17 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
| Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2005-10-05 09:43:15 | Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? |