Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Date: 2013-10-09 21:11:47
Message-ID: 5255C693.6070806@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-10-09 21:15:04 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2013-10-09 20:37:55 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem