Re: SORT performance - slow? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Maciek Sakrejda
Subject Re: SORT performance - slow?
Date
Msg-id BANLkTi=g+xaY_2cWqPCBS5=aKdHtfOWsVw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SORT performance - slow?  (Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>)
Responses Re: SORT performance - slow?
Re: SORT performance - slow?
List pgsql-performance
> You're probably reading it wrong. The sort itself takes about 1 ms (just
> subtract the numbers in "actual=").

I thought it was cost=startup_cost..total_cost. That is not quite the
same thing, since startup_cost is effectively "cost to produce first
row", and Sort can't really operate in a "streaming" fashion (well,
theoretically, something like selection sort could, but that's beside
the point) so it needs to do all the work up front. I'm no explain
expert, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

---
Maciek Sakrejda | System Architect | Truviso

1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 215
Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 242-3500 Main
www.truviso.com

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Dave Johansen
Date:
Subject: Re: Pushing LIMIT into sub-queries of a UNION ALL?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: FW: KVP table vs. hstore - hstore performance (Was: Postgres NoSQL emulation)