| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Frederik Ramm <frederik(at)remote(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2011-04-10 02:11:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1302401483.32680.1.camel@jd-desktop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 03:05 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > BTW, it sounded like your argument had to do with whether it would use
> > HashAgg or not -- that is *not* dependent on the per-palloc limit, and
> > never has been.
> >
>
> His point was he wanted to be allowed to set work_mem > 1GB. This is
> going to become a bigger and bigger problem with 72-128GB and larger
> machines already becoming quite standard.
>
Yes it is, it even came up at East. 1GB just doesn't cut it anymore...
JD
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-04-10 02:23:00 | Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2011-04-10 02:05:52 | Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem |