Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> It was 700k rows to sort, not 22k.
Oops, missed that.
> > The temporary table does need to store three copies of the records at
> > a given time, but still it sounds like an awful lot.
>
> Huh?
Am I wrong? I thought the disk sort algorithm was the polyphase tape sort from
Knuth which is always reading two tapes and writing to a third.
--
greg