Samuel Gendler <sgendler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Answered my own question. Cranking work_mem up to 350MB revealed that > the in-memory sort requires more memory than the disk sort. Yeah. The on-disk representation of sortable data is tighter than the in-memory representation for various reasons, mostly that we're willing to work at making it small. Datums aren't necessarily properly aligned for example, and there's also palloc overhead to consider in-memory. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
