Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Peripheral Links

Header And Logo

PostgreSQL
| The world's most advanced open source database.

Site Navigation

Search for
  Advanced Search

Re: Compression and on-disk sorting

  • From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
  • To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
  • Cc: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
  • Subject: Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
  • Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 16:41:51 -0400
  • Message-id: <29905(dot)1148676111(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> There is a noticeable rise in sort time with increasing work_mem, but
> that needs to be offset from the benefit that in-general comes from
> using a large Heap for the sort. With the data you're using that always
> looks like a loss, but that isn't true with all input data orderings.

Yeah, these are all the exact same test data, right?  We need a bit more
variety in the test cases before drawing any sweeping conclusions.

			regards, tom lane
Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Privacy Policy | PostgreSQL Archives hosted by Command Prompt, Inc. | Designed by tinysofa
Copyright © 1996 – 2008 PostgreSQL Global Development Group