Message-ID: <4FD5F5DC.3080507@optionshouse.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:42:52 -0500
From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Reply-To: <sthomas@optionshouse.com>
Organization: Peak6
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
	rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Thornton <mthornton@optrak.com>
CC: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Performance of CLUSTER
References: <4FD458CA.3070902@optrak.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD458CA.3070902@optrak.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

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