From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hash indexes and effective_cache_size in CREATE INDEX documentation |
Date: | 2016-07-31 17:05:56 |
Message-ID: | 32276.1469984756@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>> The CREATE INDEX documentation states:
>> "For hash indexes, the value of effective_cache_size is also relevant
>> to index creation time: PostgreSQL will use one of two different hash
>> index creation methods depending on whether the estimated index size
>> is more or less than effective_cache_size.
> Oooh. That should've been changed by 4adc2f72, and then again in
> 9563d5b5. Will fix.
After looking at that a bit, I'm strongly tempted to just take out
the last two sentences of the para, reducing it to the advice concerning
maintenance_work_mem. That seems sufficient to describe the current
behavior, and given our awful track record about maintaining this
documentation, I'm not sure that going into more detail is really
a good idea. Comments?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-07-31 17:06:44 | Re: Hash indexes and effective_cache_size in CREATE INDEX documentation |
Previous Message | Shay Rojansky | 2016-07-31 16:38:18 | Re: Slowness of extended protocol |