Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table

>That's what I get for not testing the interaction between logtape.c
>and buffile.c at a segment boundary --- it didn't work, of course :-(.
>I rebuilt with a small RELSEG_SIZE and debugged it.  I'm still concerned
>about possible integer overflow problems, so please update and try again
>with a large file.

It worked with 2GB+ table but was much slower than before.

Before(with 8MB sort memory): 22 minutes

After(with 8MB sort memory): 1 hour and 5 minutes
After(with 80MB sort memory): 42 minutes.
--
Tatsuo Ishii