On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:20:50AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
> > If we do have to fail to disk, cut back to 128MB, because having 8x that
> > certainly won't make the sort run anywhere close to 8x faster.
>
> Not sure that follows. In particular, the entire point of the recent
> changes has been to extend the range in which we can use a single merge
> pass --- that is, write the data once as N sorted runs, then merge them
> in a single read pass. As soon as you have to do an actual merge-back-
> to-disk pass, your total I/O volume doubles, so there is definitely a
> considerable gain if that can be avoided. And a larger work_mem
> translates directly to fewer/longer sorted runs.
But do fewer/longer sorted runs translate into not merging back to disk?
I thought that was controlled by if we had to be able to rewind the
result set.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461