X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55559D9CA2 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:45:18 -0300 (ADT) 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 98662-07 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:45:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from boutiquenumerique.com (boutiquenumerique.com [82.67.9.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BDBD95E0 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:45:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 29608 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2005 23:46:04 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (boutiquenumerique-lists@192.168.0.4) by boutiquenumerique.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2005 23:46:04 +0200 To: "Luke Lonergan" , "Ron Peacetree" , "Josh Berkus" , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? References: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:45:10 +0200 From: PFC Organization: =?iso-8859-15?Q?La_Boutique_Num=E9rique?= Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera M2/8.0 (Linux, build 1095) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/1441 X-Sequence-Number: 73838 > Bulk loading speed is irrelevant here - that is dominated by parsing, > which > we have covered copiously (har har) previously and have sped up by 500%, > which still makes Postgres < 1/2 the loading speed of MySQL. Let's ask MySQL 4.0 > LOAD DATA INFILE blah 0 errors, 666 warnings > SHOW WARNINGS; not implemented. upgrade to 4.1 duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh