| From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table |
| Date: | 1999-11-01 22:25:40 |
| Message-ID: | 381E1364.847D04BB@wgcr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> the 6.5 code. I'm not sure I understand why. The majority of the block
> reads or writes *should* be sequential now, given a reasonable SortMem
> (and he tested with quite large settings). I'm afraid there is some
> aspect of the kernel's behavior on his system that we don't have a clue
> about...
How could I go about duplicating this?? Having multiple RedHat systems
available (both of the 2.2 and 2.0 variety), I'd be glad to test it
here. I'm pulling a cvs update as I write this. If possible, I'd like
to duplicate it exactly.
Also, from prior discussions with Thomas, there is a RedHat 6.0 machine
at hub.org for testing purposes.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 1999-11-01 22:42:50 | Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-11-01 22:03:28 | Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table |