Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 64-bit integers for GUC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: 64-bit integers for GUC
Date: 2006-07-31 01:24:47
Message-ID: 21471.1154309087@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> On Tuesday 25 July 2006 14:28, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> To be quite frank, current PostgreSQL can't effectively use more than
>> 256mb of work_mem anyway.  We'd like to fix that, but it's not fixed yet
>> AFAIK.

> Josh, can you clarify this statement for me?

Perhaps I shouldn't put words in Josh' mouth, but I *think* what he
meant is that the tuplesort code does not get any faster once work_mem
exceeds a few hundred meg.  I believe we've addressed that to some
extent in CVS HEAD, but it's a fair gripe against the existing release
branches.

I'm not aware that anyone has done any work to characterize performance
vs work_mem setting for any of the other uses of work_mem (such as hash
table sizes).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2006-07-31 02:37:51
Subject: Re: Let psql process files with > 4,294,967,295 lines
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2006-07-31 01:10:45
Subject: Re: 64-bit integers for GUC

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group