| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pginfo <pginfo(at)t1(dot)unisoftbg(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sort time |
| Date: | 2002-11-18 11:56:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20021118034829.P48668-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, pginfo wrote:
> I think that we need to work around the non us sorting and compare.
> It is not possible to be so slow (all the functions are executed in memory
> and in java and by oracle and by ms all this is working very fast).
I get similar results from the unix sort command, (8 sec elapsed for C
locale, 25 sec for en_US) on my redhat 8 machine (and I forced the buffer
size high enough to not get any temp files afaict).
I'm not sure what platform Tom was using for his test, but maybe someone
could try this on a non x86/linux machine and see what they get (I don't
have access to one).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikk Anderson | 2002-11-18 12:32:45 | selects from large tables |
| Previous Message | pginfo | 2002-11-18 10:16:14 | Re: Sort time |