AW: AW: [HACKERS] sort on huge table

> 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.

Yes, I doubt that the new test shows the same bottleneck situation.
He did not tell us the IO versus CPU time on the recent 250 Mb test.
I suspect, that the CPU time now has a higher percentage on total time.

Andreas