On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So, what I'd like to do is make btree index creation pay attention to
> >> vacuum_mem instead of sort_mem, and rename the vacuum_mem parameter to
> >> some more-generic name indicating that it's used for more than just
> >> VACUUM. Any objections so far?
> > Why not create a seperate index_mem variable instead? index creation
> > tends to be, I think, less frequent then vacuum, so having a higher value
> > for index_mem then vacuum_mem may make sense ...
> Well, maybe. What's in the back of my mind is that we may come across
> other cases besides CREATE INDEX and VACUUM that should use a "one-off"
> setting. I think it'd make more sense to have one parameter than keep
> on inventing new ones. For comparison, SortMem is used for quite a few
> different purposes, but I can't recall anyone needing to tweak an
> individual one of those purposes other than CREATE INDEX.
Why not a 'default_mem' parameter that auto-sets the others if not
explicitly set? note that, at least in my case, I didn't know that
sort_mem affected CREATE INDEX, only ORDER/GORUP BYs ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Hallgren||Date: 2004-01-31 23:16:41|
|Subject: Re: Transaction callback|
|Previous:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2004-01-31 23:01:00|
|Subject: Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort memory|