From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
To: Mark Thornton <mthornton@optrak.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance of CLUSTER
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:42:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4FD5F5DC.3080507@optionshouse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FD458CA.3070902@optrak.com>
References: <4FD458CA.3070902@optrak.com>
On 06/10/2012 03:20 AM, Mark Thornton wrote:
> 4. 3980922 rows, 1167MB, 276s
> 5. 31843368 rows, 9709MB, ~ 10 hours
Just judging based on the difference between these two, it would appear
to be from a lot of temp space thrashing. An order of magnitude more
rows shouldn't take over 100x longer to cluster, even with GIST. What's
your maintenance_work_mem setting?
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas@optionshouse.com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
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: sthomas@optionshouse.com, mthornton@optrak.com
Subject: Re: Performance of CLUSTER
In-Reply-To: <4FD5F5DC.3080507@optionshouse.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