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. +
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 |