From: Charlie Savage <cfis@interserv.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Sort performance on large tables
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:47:10 -0700
Message-ID: <dkrddq$22bd$1@news.hub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9449.1131488781@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <43704E1D.80708@interserv.com>
<437088A1.8090304@archonet.com>
<dkr7ga$18a4$1@news.hub.org>
<9449.1131488781@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Its an int4.
Charlie
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
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: cfis@interserv.com
Subject: Re: Sort performance on large tables
In-Reply-To: <dkrddq$22bd$1@news.hub.org>
* 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