Andreas Kretschmer writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Reid Thompson writes:
>>> What am I missing that causes this to resort to sorting on disk?
>>
>> The in-memory space required to sort N tuples can be significantly
>> larger than the on-disk space,
> Question: when is the planner making the decis
On 02/22/2011 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Reid Thompson writes:
>> What am I missing that causes this to resort to sorting on disk?
>
> The in-memory space required to sort N tuples can be significantly
> larger than the on-disk space, because the latter representation is
> optimized to be small
Tom Lane wrote:
> Reid Thompson writes:
> > What am I missing that causes this to resort to sorting on disk?
>
> The in-memory space required to sort N tuples can be significantly
> larger than the on-disk space, because the latter representation is
> optimized to be small and the in-memory rep
Reid Thompson writes:
> What am I missing that causes this to resort to sorting on disk?
The in-memory space required to sort N tuples can be significantly
larger than the on-disk space, because the latter representation is
optimized to be small and the in-memory representation not so much.
I hav
Reid Thompson wrote:
> What am I missing that causes this to resort to sorting on disk?
>
> obc=# select version();
> version
> --
> PostgreSQ
What am I missing that causes this to resort to sorting on disk?
obc=# select version();
version
--
PostgreSQL 8.3.7 on x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu,
