From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>
Cc: Dave Held <dave.held@arrayservicesgrp.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Sort and index
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:01:26 -0400
Message-ID: <19631.1113966086@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050420004234.GX58835@decibel.org>
References: <49E94D0CFCD4DB43AFBA928DDD20C8F9026184B6@asg002.asg.local>
<20050420004234.GX58835@decibel.org>
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> Actually, the planner (at least in 7.4) isn't smart enough to consider
> if the sort would fit in memory or not.
Really? Have you read cost_sort()?
It's certainly possible that the calculation is all wet, but to claim
that the issue is not considered is just wrong.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, decibel@decibel.org, dave.held@arrayservicesgrp.com
Subject: Re: Sort and index
In-Reply-To: <19631.1113966086@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox