Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements
aimed at understanding external sort performance. There is no attempt to
alter the algorithms.
Minor update of patch, use this version please.
Applied with revisions: I made it use
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 18:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The following patch implements a fairly light set of timing statements
aimed at understanding external sort performance. There is no attempt to
alter the algorithms.
Minor update of patch, use this
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Applied with revisions: I made it use the VacRUsage code so that we
could see both CPU and elapsed time, and moved the report points around
a bit. The output with trace_sort enabled looks like this:
NOTICE: begin tuple sort: nkeys = 1, workMem = 1024,
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not actually involved in this so maybe I'm completely off base here. But
wouldn't you want to know how many tuples are being sorted and how many data
are being written in these runs in order to be able to actually make sense of
these timing
