Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table

Tom Lane wrote:
> the 6.5 code.  I'm not sure I understand why.  The majority of the block
> reads or writes *should* be sequential now, given a reasonable SortMem
> (and he tested with quite large settings).  I'm afraid there is some
> aspect of the kernel's behavior on his system that we don't have a clue
> about...

How could I go about duplicating this?? Having multiple RedHat systems
available (both of the 2.2 and 2.0 variety), I'd be glad to test it
here. I'm pulling a cvs update as I write this.  If possible, I'd like
to duplicate it exactly.

Also, from prior discussions with Thomas, there is a RedHat 6.0 machine
at hub.org for testing purposes.

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11