Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZSJPgewee_dTicq3PuZgrY+63SbbzATHTr+rdg4ykOp-w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Vacuum, Freeze and Analyze: the big picture
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I've seen cases on Stack Overflow and elsewhere in which disk merge > sorts perform vastly better than in-memory quicksort, so the user > benefited from greatly *lowering* work_mem. I've heard of that happening on Oracle, when the external sort is capable of taking advantage of I/O parallelism, but I have a pretty hard time believing that it could happen with Postgres under any circumstances. Maybe if someone was extraordinarily unlucky and happened to hit quicksort's O(n ^ 2) worst case it could happen, but we take various measures that make that very unlikely. It might also have something to do with our "check for pre-sorted input" [1], but I'm still skeptical. [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEYLb_Xn4-6f1ofsf2qduf24dDCVHbQidt7JPpdL_RiT1zBJ6A@mail.gmail.com -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: