| From: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Frederik Ramm <frederik(at)remote(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2011-02-20 12:08:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1298203713.2735.14.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 23:24 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > But before expending time on that, I'd want to see some evidence
> that
> > it's actually helpful for production situations. I'm a bit dubious
> > that you're going to gain much here.
>
> If you want to build an index on a 500GB table and you have 1TB RAM,
> then being able to use >>1GB maintenance_work_mem can only be good,
> no?
That would also probably speed up Slony (or similar) replication engines
in initial replication phase. I know that I had to wait a lot while
creating big indexes on a machine which had enough ram.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2011-02-20 12:17:11 | Cannot *start* server because of a typo in pg_hba.conf |
| Previous Message | Radosław Smogura | 2011-02-20 10:20:22 | Void binary patch |