Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort

> 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.
>

I don't know if this would apply here - but foriegn key creation also
benefits hugely from jacking up sort_mem and you also don't do too many
of those in parellel.

I'm guessing it would be quite in-elegant and kludgy to make that code
use the bigger pool.. it would benefit restore times though.

--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/