Re: Sort performance on large tables - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Charlie Savage
Subject Re: Sort performance on large tables
Date
Msg-id dkrddq$22bd$1@news.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sort performance on large tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Its an int4.

Charlie

Tom Lane wrote:
> Charlie Savage <cfis@interserv.com> writes:
>> Thus the time decreased from 8486 seconds to 5279 seconds - which is a
>> nice improvement.  However, that still leaves postgresql about 9 times
>> slower.
>
> BTW, what data type are you sorting, exactly?  If it's a string type,
> what is your LC_COLLATE setting?
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Sort performance on large tables
Next
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: Sort performance on large tables