Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes:
> I think that we *can* refine this guess, and should, because random
> I/O is really quite unlikely to be a large cost these days (I/O in
> general often isn't a large cost, actually). More fundamentally, I
> think it's a problem that cost_sort() thinks that external sorts are
> far more expensive than internal sorts in general. There is good
> reason to think that that does not reflect the reality. I think we can
> expect external sorts to be *faster* than internal sorts with
> increasing regularity in Postgres 10.
TBH, if that's true, haven't you broken something?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
