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 599A8D90EC; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:25:33 -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 99914-01; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:25:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pop-gadwall.atl.sa.earthlink.net (pop-gadwall.atl.sa.earthlink.net [207.69.195.61]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611C8D9B16; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:25:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.224.45]) by pop-gadwall.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1EKmEt-0004Pw-00; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:25:31 -0400 Message-ID: <12692871.1127953531542.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:25:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Peacetree Reply-To: Ron Peacetree To: Kevin Grittner , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Earthlink Zoo Mail 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.263 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.374] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/1356 X-Sequence-Number: 73753 If I've done this correctly, there should not be anywhere near the number of context switches we currently see while sorting. Each unscheduled context switch represents something unexpected occuring or things not being where they are needed when they are needed. Reducing such circumstances to the absolute minimum was one of the design goals. Reducing the total amount of IO to the absolute minimum should help as well. Ron -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Grittner Sent: Sep 27, 2005 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? I can't help wondering how a couple thousand context switches per second would affect the attempt to load disk info into the L1 and L2 caches. That's pretty much the low end of what I see when the server is under any significant load.