Обсуждение: Re^3 : Solaris Performance - 64 bit puzzle

>What I'm now puzzled about is why just exercising the right kind of
>sort didn't exhibit the slowdown.

I wonder if the size of your sorted dataset ( i.e. all 1000000 rows) is
the reason - too big to fit into sort_mem, so that temporary files are
needed. The resulting file management *may* have obscured the difference
in sort speed - although that does not explain how your resuts were
consistently *faster* for the Solaris qsort.

regards

Mark

On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 08:50:09PM +1200, Mark kirkwood wrote:
>
> >What I'm now puzzled about is why just exercising the right kind of
> >sort didn't exhibit the slowdown.
>
> I wonder if the size of your sorted dataset ( i.e. all 1000000 rows) is
> the reason - too big to fit into sort_mem, so that temporary files are

Good point.  That's probably it.  I should think harder when
doing one-off tests, because I didn't tune the system at all.

> in sort speed - although that does not explain how your resuts were
> consistently *faster* for the Solaris qsort.

True.

A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan                               87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M6K 3E3
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110