Re: New 9.6 external sort guidance around temp_tablespaces and maintenance_work_mem

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:19:02PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Presumably due to the old issues with tuplesort, the closest the docs
> get to recommending higher work_mem or maintenance_work_mem settings
> is: "Larger [maintenance_work_mem] settings might improve performance
> for vacuuming and for restoring database dumps". That's it! Since the
> performance characteristics of external sorting are now roughly in
> line with everything else, why continue to make such a weak statement
> in 9.6? It's not hard to understand why we originally equivocated
> here, but things have changed.

Yes, this needs updating. My point is that there is a whole lot of
things we don't talk about in this area, and should, but I would like it
to be of a consistent level of detail for all areas of performancce.

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

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +