On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Stephan,
>
> On 11/8/05 9:38 AM, "Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> > Just as we find with a similar comparison (with a "popular commercial,
> >> > proprietary database" :-) Though some might suggest you increase
> >> > work_mem or other tuning suggestions to speed sorting, none work. In
> >> > fact, we find that increasing work_mem actually slows sorting slightly.
> >
> > I wish you'd qualify your statements, because I can demonstrably show that
> > I can make sorts go faster on my machine at least by increasing work_mem
> > under some conditions.
> >
> Cool ? can you provide your test case please?
I probably should have added the wink smiley to make it obvious I was
talking about the simplest case, things that don't fit in work_mem at the
current level but for which it's easy to raise work_mem to cover. It's not
a big a gain as one might hope, but it does certainly drop again.
> Recognize also that we?re looking for a factor of 10 or more improvement
> here ? this is not a small increase that?s needed.
I agree that we definately need help on that regard. I do see the effect
where raising work_mem lowers the performance up until that point. I just
think that it requires more care in the discussion than disregarding the
suggestions entirely especially since people are going to see this in the
archives.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
