
> I have an idea.  Can he run CLUSTER on the data?  If so, the sort will
> not use small batches, and the disk space during sort will be reduced.

I think a real winner would be to use an existing index. This is what others do
to eliminate a sort completely. Of course the optimizer has to choose what is cheaper 
on a per query basis (index access or sort of result set).
result set small --> use sort
result set large --> use available index

Andreas



Fri, 22 May 1998 14:56:19 +0200
Andreas Zeugswetter <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.at>
Re: [HACKERS] sorting big tables :(
> 
> 
> > I have an idea.  Can he run CLUSTER on the data?  If so, the sort will
> > not use small batches, and the disk space during sort will be reduced.
> 
> I think a real winner would be to use an existing index. This is what others do
> to eliminate a sort completely. Of course the optimizer has to choose what is cheaper 
> on a per query basis (index access or sort of result set).
> result set small --> use sort
> result set large --> use available index

Keep in mind an index is going to be seeking all over the table, making
the cache of limited use.  Sometime, when doing a join, the optimizer
chooses a sequential scan rather than use an index for this reason, and
the sequential scan is faster.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Fri, 22 May 1998 10:24:20 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] sorting big tables :(