Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-09-30 19:04:29
Message-ID: 11091.1285873469@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 08:44 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So, I think "twice disk space of the sum of table and indexes" would be
> the simplest explanation for safe margin.
>>
>> Agreed.

> Surely the peak space is x3?
> Old space + sort space + new space.

The wording should be something like "CLUSTER requires transient disk
space equal to about twice the size of the table plus its indexes".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-09-30 19:26:11 O_DSYNC broken on MacOS X?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-09-30 18:09:38 Re: security hook on table creation