X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF345D9E78;
	Wed,  5 Oct 2005 07:33:13 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 33240-03; Wed,  5 Oct 2005 10:33:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.skype.net (mail.skype.net [195.215.8.149])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AEFD9072;
	Wed,  5 Oct 2005 07:33:06 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784464DD89;
	Wed,  5 Oct 2005 12:33:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.41] (joltid-gw.joltid.org [195.50.194.24])
	by mail.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1594DE60;
	Wed,  5 Oct 2005 12:32:53 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>
To: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <20051005094315.GX2241@mathom.us>
References: 
 <31833713.1128111650174.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
	<200510031334.02030.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<1128372151.28509.1.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com>
	<200510031416.15620.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<1128375790.5882.18.camel@fuji.krosing.net>
	<20051005094315.GX2241@mathom.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:32:52 +0300
Message-Id: <1128508373.8561.28.camel@fuji.krosing.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-6) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.008 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/206
X-Sequence-Number: 74065

On K, 2005-10-05 at 05:43 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 12:43:10AM +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >Just FYI, I run a count(*) on a 15.6GB table on a lightly loaded db and
> >it run in 163 sec. (Dual opteron 2.6GHz, 6GB RAM, 6 x 74GB 15k  disks in
> >RAID10, reiserfs). A little less than 100MB sec.
> 
> And none of that 15G table is in the 6G RAM?

I believe so, as there had been another query running for some time,
doing a select form a 50GB table.

-- 
Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>