pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Glenn Sullivan <glenn.sullivan@varianinc.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance of ORDER BY
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:42:56 -0700
Message-ID: <4575D9D0.5010206@varianinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7090.1165341726@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4575A863.6040504@varianinc.com>
	<7090.1165341726@sss.pgh.pa.us>

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Thanks to Luke and Tom for the input.&nbsp; I guess this was good timing
given that it looks like<br>
8.2 was just released today.&nbsp;&nbsp; I will upgade to that before doing
anything else.<br>
<br>
Glenn<br>
<br>
Tom Lane wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid7090.1165341726@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Glenn Sullivan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:glenn.sullivan@varianinc.com">&lt;glenn.sullivan@varianinc.com&gt;</a> writes:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">I am wanting some ideas about improving the performance of ORDER BY in
our use.  I have a DB on the order of 500,000 rows and 50 columns.
The results are always sorted with ORDER BY.  Sometimes, the users end up
with a search that matches most of the rows.  In that case, I have a
LIMIT 5000 to keep the returned results under control.  However, the
sorting seems to take 10-60 sec.  If I do the same search without the
ORDER BY, it takes about a second.  
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
Does the ORDER BY match an index?  If so, is it using the index?
(See EXPLAIN.)

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">I am currently on version 8.0.1 on Windows XP using a Dell Optiplex 280
with 1Gb of ram.  I have set sort_mem=100000 set.
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
In 8.0 that might be counterproductively high --- we have seen cases
where more sort_mem = slower with the older sorting code.  I concur
with Luke's advice that you should update to 8.2 (not 8.1) to get the
improved sorting code.

			regards, tom lane

  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>



view thread (8+ messages)

Message-ID: <4575D9D0.5010206@varianinc.com>
Permalink:  ../4575D9D0.5010206@varianinc.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4575D9D0.5010206@varianinc.com

 · 

reply

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: glenn.sullivan@varianinc.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
  Subject: Re: Performance of ORDER BY
  In-Reply-To: <4575D9D0.5010206@varianinc.com>

* 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