Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com> writes:
> Answered my own question. Cranking work_mem up to 350MB revealed that
> the in-memory sort requires more memory than the disk sort.
Yeah. The on-disk representation of sortable data is tighter than the
in-memory representation for various reasons, mostly that we're willing
to work at making it small. Datums aren't necessarily properly aligned
for example, and there's also palloc overhead to consider in-memory.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-08-19 13:41:38|
|Subject: Re: Fwd: Vacuum Full + Cluster + Vacuum full = non removable dead rows|
|Previous:||From: Alexandre de Arruda Paes||Date: 2010-08-19 12:57:12|
|Subject: Re: Fwd: Vacuum Full + Cluster + Vacuum full = non
removable dead rows|