Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Was this resolved?

I tweaked the code some, and am waiting for retest results from Tatsuo.

I think the poor results he is seeing might be platform-dependent; on
my machine current code seems to be faster than 6.5.* ... but on the
other hand I don't have the disk space to run a multi-gig sort test.

Can anyone else take the time to compare speed of large sorts between
6.5.* and current code?
        regards, tom lane


>> It worked with 2GB+ table but was much slower than before.
>> 
>> Before(with 8MB sort memory): 22 minutes
>> 
>> After(with 8MB sort memory): 1 hour and 5 minutes
>> After(with 80MB sort memory): 42 minutes.
>> --
>> Tatsuo Ishii