| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sort performance |
| Date: | 2006-09-01 15:57:16 |
| Message-ID: | 5444.1157126236@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Mem Runs Time
> ---- ---- ----
> 1MB 18 8.25s
> 10MB 3 5.6s
> 100MB qsort 6.1s
I'm confused what this means exactly? Are you saying that in the first
two cases, there were 18 and 3 sorted runs generated in the initial
pass, and in the third case we just did the sort in memory using qsort?
How many items are being sorted, exactly? Since it's text, it probably
also makes a big difference what LC_COLLATE setting you are using.
Non-C sort locale could mean that the strcoll() calls swamp all else.
How long does it take sort(1) to do the same task?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2006-09-01 16:03:11 | Re: Thought provoking piece on NetBSD |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-01 15:50:54 | Getting a move on for 8.2 beta |