Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table
Date: 1999-11-30 04:11:15
Message-ID: 19242.943935075@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Was this resolved?

I tweaked the code some, and am waiting for retest results from Tatsuo.

I think the poor results he is seeing might be platform-dependent; on
my machine current code seems to be faster than 6.5.* ... but on the
other hand I don't have the disk space to run a multi-gig sort test.

Can anyone else take the time to compare speed of large sorts between
6.5.* and current code?

regards, tom lane

>> It worked with 2GB+ table but was much slower than before.
>>
>> Before(with 8MB sort memory): 22 minutes
>>
>> After(with 8MB sort memory): 1 hour and 5 minutes
>> After(with 80MB sort memory): 42 minutes.
>> --
>> Tatsuo Ishii

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-11-30 04:16:40 Re: [HACKERS] IN clause and INTERSECT not behaving as expected
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-11-30 04:03:33 Re: [HACKERS] Re: pg_ctl