| Lists: | pgsql-general |
|---|
| From: | Mark kirkwood <markir(at)slingshot(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re^3 : Solaris Performance - 64 bit puzzle |
| Date: | 2002-06-05 08:50:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1023267010.1278.16.camel@spikey.slithery.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>What I'm now puzzled about is why just exercising the right kind of
>sort didn't exhibit the slowdown.
I wonder if the size of your sorted dataset ( i.e. all 1000000 rows) is
the reason - too big to fit into sort_mem, so that temporary files are
needed. The resulting file management *may* have obscured the difference
in sort speed - although that does not explain how your resuts were
consistently *faster* for the Solaris qsort.
regards
Mark
| From: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re^3 : Solaris Performance - 64 bit puzzle |
| Date: | 2002-06-05 15:36:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20020605113631.H6345@mail.libertyrms.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 08:50:09PM +1200, Mark kirkwood wrote:
>
> >What I'm now puzzled about is why just exercising the right kind of
> >sort didn't exhibit the slowdown.
>
> I wonder if the size of your sorted dataset ( i.e. all 1000000 rows) is
> the reason - too big to fit into sort_mem, so that temporary files are
Good point. That's probably it. I should think harder when
doing one-off tests, because I didn't tune the system at all.
> in sort speed - although that does not explain how your resuts were
> consistently *faster* for the Solaris qsort.
True.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110