Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index behaviour)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index behaviour)
Date: 2006-02-16 14:42:40
Message-ID: 27898.1140100960@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
"Gary Doades" <gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> I think the reason I wasn't seeing performance issues with normal sort
> operations is because they use work_mem not maintenance_work_mem which was
> only set to 2048 anyway. Does that sound right?

Very probable.  Do you want to test the theory by jacking that up?  ;-)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-02-16 14:48:33
Subject: Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index
Previous:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2006-02-16 14:19:44
Subject: Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-02-16 14:48:33
Subject: Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-02-16 14:41:08
Subject: Re: Generating config stuff from single source

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group