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 C0BB4D9239;
	Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:23:32 -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 42322-03; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:23:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com
	[209.128.84.227])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307B0D922B;
	Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:23:29 -0300 (ADT)
X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found
Received: from [64.81.245.111] (HELO [192.168.1.38])
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
	with ESMTP id 8179910; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:25:54 -0700
Message-ID: <433D7492.7000307@agliodbs.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:23:30 -0700
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ron Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
References: 
 <28561251.1128057870608.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: 
 <28561251.1128057870608.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests=[none]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200509/1419
X-Sequence-Number: 73816

Ron,

> Hmmm.
> 60GB/5400secs= 11MBps.  That's ssllooww.  So the first
> problem is evidently our physical layout and/or HD IO layer
> sucks.

Actually, it's much worse than that, because the sort is only dealing 
with one column.  As I said, monitoring the iostat our top speed was 
2.2mb/s.

--Josh