Re: Sort performance on large tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Charlie Savage <cfis(at)interserv(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Sort performance on large tables
Date: 2005-11-08 22:26:21
Message-ID: 9449.1131488781@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Charlie Savage <cfis(at)interserv(dot)com> writes:
> Thus the time decreased from 8486 seconds to 5279 seconds - which is a
> nice improvement. However, that still leaves postgresql about 9 times
> slower.

BTW, what data type are you sorting, exactly? If it's a string type,
what is your LC_COLLATE setting?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas F. O'Connell 2005-11-08 23:26:28 Re: Figuring out which command failed
Previous Message Charlie Savage 2005-11-08 22:06:04 Re: Sort performance on large tables