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

Re: [PATCHES] Automatically setting work_mem

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <jberkus(at)greenplum(dot)com>,Ayush Parashar <aparashar(at)greenplum(dot)com>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>,pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org,Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>,Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Automatically setting work_mem
Date: 2006-03-25 13:10:18
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 12:24:00PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> memory. Using too much memory could also impact overall elapsed time
> when we have concurrent users, so the question is should we optimise
> resources for the multi-user case or for the single user case? Where is
> the right balance point? 

Sounds like what we need is a GUC... I know I certainly have cases where
I'll take faster and using more memory over the alternative.
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software    work: 512-231-6117
vcard:       cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: John DeSoiDate: 2006-03-25 13:47:28
Subject: Re: Bytea and perl
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-03-25 13:02:22
Subject: Re: Domains as Subtypes

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-03-25 15:00:51
Subject: Re: Where does the time go?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-03-25 12:24:00
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Automatically setting work_mem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group