X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED60D7AFA
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 Nov 2005 18:26:22 -0400 (AST)
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 42847-09
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 Nov 2005 22:26:19 +0000 (GMT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64462D79A1
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 Nov 2005 18:26:20 -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 jA8MQL3u009450;
	Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:26:22 -0500 (EST)
To: Charlie Savage <cfis@interserv.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Sort performance on large tables 
In-reply-to: <dkr7ga$18a4$1@news.hub.org> 
References: <43704E1D.80708@interserv.com> <437088A1.8090304@archonet.com>
	<dkr7ga$18a4$1@news.hub.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Charlie Savage <cfis@interserv.com>
	message dated "Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:06:04 -0700"
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:26:21 -0500
Message-ID: <9449.1131488781@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006]
X-Spam-Score: 0.006
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200511/146
X-Sequence-Number: 15403

Charlie Savage <cfis@interserv.com> writes:
> Thus the time decreased from 8486 seconds to 5279 seconds - which is a 
> nice improvement.  However, that still leaves postgresql about 9 times 
> slower.

BTW, what data type are you sorting, exactly?  If it's a string type,
what is your LC_COLLATE setting?

			regards, tom lane