Frank Schoep <frank@xxxxxxx> writes:
> Limit (cost=4002.04..4002.29 rows=100 width=48) (actual
> time=1469.565..1470.097 rows=100 loops=1)
> -> Sort (cost=3997.29..4031.18 rows=13556 width=48) (actual
> time=1460.958..1467.993 rows=2000 loops=1)
> Sort Key: name
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on movies (cost=86.45..3066.90
> rows=13556 width=48) (actual time=20.522..77.889 rows=13640 loops=1)
> Recheck Cond: (letter = 'T'::bpchar)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on movies_letter
> (cost=0.00..86.45 rows=13556 width=0) (actual time=18.452..18.452
> rows=13658 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (letter = 'T'::bpchar)
> Total runtime: 1474.821 ms
Why is the sort step so slow? Sorting a mere 13k rows shouldn't take
very long. Maybe you are overrunning work_mem and it's falling back
to a disk sort ... what is work_mem set to?
Another theory is that you are using a locale in which strcoll() is
horridly expensive :-(
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
