Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
От | Luke Lonergan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662DE11B55@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? (Ron Peacetree <rjpeace@earthlink.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Nope - it would be disk wait. COPY is CPU bound on I/O subsystems faster that 50 MB/s on COPY (in) and about 15 MB/s (out). - Luke -----Original Message----- From: Michael Stone [mailto:mstone+postgres@mathom.us] Sent: Wed Oct 05 09:58:41 2005 To: Martijn van Oosterhout Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 06:19:41PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: >COPY TO /dev/null WITH binary >13MB/s 55% user 45% system (ergo, CPU bound) [snip] >the most expensive. But it does point out that the whole process is >probably CPU bound more than anything else. Note that 45% of that cpu usage is system--which is where IO overhead would end up being counted. Until you profile where you system time is going it's premature to say it isn't an IO problem. Mike Stone ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: