Charlie Savage wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a question about the performance of sort.
Note it takes over 10 times longer to do the sort than the full
sequential scan.
Should I expect results like this? I realize that the computer is quite
low-end and is very IO bound for this query, but I'm still surprised
that the sort operation takes so long.
The sort will be spilling to disk, which will grind your I/O to a halt.
work_mem = 16384 # in Kb
Try upping this. You should be able to issue "set work_mem = 100000"
before running your query IIRC. That should let PG do its sorting in
larger chunks.
Also, if your most common access pattern is ordered via tlid look into
clustering the table on that.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
