From: | Michael Richards <miker(at)scifair(dot)acadiau(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] sorting big tables :( |
Date: | 1998-05-16 15:47:52 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.3.96.980516124300.13349A-100000@scifair.acadiau.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 15 May 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have a big table. 40M rows.
> > On the disk, it's size is:
> > 2,090,369,024 bytes. So 2 gigs. On a 9 gig drive I can't sort this table.
> > How should one decide based on table size how much room is needed?
> It is taking so much disk space because it is using a TAPE sorting
> method, by breaking the file into tape chunks and sorting in pieces, the
The files grow until I have 6 files of almost a gig each. At that point, I
start running out of space...
This TAPE sotring method. It is a simple merge sort? Do you know of a way
this could be done while using constant space and no more complexity in
the algorithim. Even if it is a little slower, the DBMS could decide based
on the table size whether it should use the tape sort or another one...
Bubble sort would not be my first choice tho :)
-Mike
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ryan Kirkpatrick | 1998-05-16 16:48:17 | Regression Test Analysis for Linux/Alpha... |
Previous Message | Oliver Elphick | 1998-05-16 08:02:15 | Re: CREATE DATABASE |