Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1148674904.2755.254.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 14:47 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > But the meat is: > -- work_mem -- > Scale 2000 20000 > not compressed 150 805.7 797.7 > not compressed 3000 17820 17436 > compressed 150 371.4 400.1 > compressed 3000 8152 8537 > compressed, no headers 3000 7325 7876 Since Tom has committed the header-removing patch, we need to test not compressed, no headers v compressed, no headers 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. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: