On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:32:36 -0800 (PST) Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, 298383 -> 83109 (since those are the 256k numbers). Not as > much as I'd have hoped, but I'll take a factor of 3. Yes. those are the numbers for 256MB of sort_mem. It seemed to saturate the IO so once I get more disks in here it should hopefully speed up. -- Jeff Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.jefftrout.com/ http://www.stuarthamm.net/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
