X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5368B9DCC4F for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:42:39 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07651-04 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:42:43 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EF69DCBB4 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:42:36 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1GEgewi027899; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:42:40 -0500 (EST) To: gpd@gpdnet.co.uk cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] qsort again (was Re: Strange Create Index behaviour) In-reply-to: <2417.84.92.210.49.1140087992.squirrel@www.gpdnet.co.uk> References: <43F38867.6010701@gpdnet.co.uk> <19510.1140036968@sss.pgh.pa.us> <19779.1140038874@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43F39E53.1020009@gpdnet.co.uk> <20781.1140046109@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43F3BF72.6000202@gpdnet.co.uk> <21152.1140049020@sss.pgh.pa.us> <21455.1140051584@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2417.84.92.210.49.1140087992.squirrel@www.gpdnet.co.uk> Comments: In-reply-to "Gary Doades" message dated "Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:06:32 +0000" Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:42:40 -0500 Message-ID: <27898.1140100960@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.11 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.110] X-Spam-Score: 0.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/248 X-Sequence-Number: 17234 "Gary Doades" writes: > I think the reason I wasn't seeing performance issues with normal sort > operations is because they use work_mem not maintenance_work_mem which was > only set to 2048 anyway. Does that sound right? Very probable. Do you want to test the theory by jacking that up? ;-) regards, tom lane