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 6AAD5D7AFA for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:47:14 -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 59607-10 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:47:10 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EC5D6805 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:47:11 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 358FD31059; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:47:13 +0100 (MET) From: Charlie Savage X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: Sort performance on large tables Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:47:10 -0700 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <43704E1D.80708@interserv.com> <437088A1.8090304@archonet.com> <9449.1131488781@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) In-Reply-To: <9449.1131488781@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/147 X-Sequence-Number: 15404 Its an int4. Charlie Tom Lane wrote: > Charlie Savage 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 >