| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SEV <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp'" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] sort on huge table |
| Date: | 1999-11-02 15:23:26 |
| Message-ID: | 11450.941556206@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SEV <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> This new test case is not big enough to show cache memory contention,
> and is thus faster with the new code.
Cache memory contention? I don't think so. Take a look at the CPU
versus elapsed times in Tatsuo's prior report on the 2Gb case.
I'm not sure yet what's going on, but it's clear that the bottleneck is
I/O operations not processor/memory speed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 1999-11-02 16:04:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Regression Testing on REL6_5_PATCHES |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-11-02 15:18:15 | Re: [HACKERS] file descriptors leak? |