| From: | Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | in-memory sorting |
| Date: | 2010-08-19 05:23:52 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikp=KrFmUSrs+z7BQvbFnuyM=0KjPRKA2EbxDKY@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
I've got this explain: http://explain.depesz.com/s/Xh9
And these settings:
default_statistics_target = 50 # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
maintenance_work_mem = 1GB # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
constraint_exclusion = on # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9 # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
effective_cache_size = 36GB # sam
work_mem = 288MB # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
wal_buffers = 8MB # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
#checkpoint_segments = 16 # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
checkpoint_segments = 30 # sam
shared_buffers = 11GB # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
max_connections = 80 # pgtune wizard 2010-08-17
cpu_tuple_cost = 0.0030 # sam
cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.0010 # sam
cpu_operator_cost = 0.0005 # sam
#random_page_cost = 2.0 # sam
I'm not understanding why it is sorting on disk if it would fit within
a work_mem segment - by a fairly wide margin. Is there something else
I can do to get that sort to happen in memory?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Samuel Gendler | 2010-08-19 05:45:58 | Re: in-memory sorting |
| Previous Message | s anwar | 2010-08-18 22:59:52 | Re: Copy performance issues |