Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Date: 2013-10-09 21:16:25
Message-ID: 20131009211625.GD7092@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 02:11:47PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/09/2013 01:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > If Heroku could increase maintenace_work_mem without having it affect
> > the amount of memory used by autovacuum workers, I'm fairly confident
> > that our setting would be higher. Sure, you can just increase it as
> > you need to, but you have to know about it in the first place, which
> > is asking too much of many people tasked with semi-routine maintenance
> > tasks like creating indexes.
>
> Personally, I never got why we used maint_work_mem instead of work_mem
> for bulk-loading indexes. What was the reason there?

Because 'maintenance' operations were rarer, so we figured we could use
more memory in those cases.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-10-09 21:43:14 Re: Patch: FORCE_NULL option for copy COPY in CSV mode
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-10-09 21:15:04 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem