| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Automatically setting work_mem |
| Date: | 2006-03-21 23:06:30 |
| Message-ID: | 5292.1142982390@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> Experiment should take but a minute to validate or disprove the hypothesis.
Only if you're prepared to trust the results of one experiment on one
platform with a not-very-large amount of data. Otherwise it's going to
take quite a few minutes ...
The real problem we are facing with a whole lot of our optimization
issues (not only sorting) is that it's not all that trivial to get
credible experimental results that we can expect will hold up across
a range of usage scenarios.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | satoshi nagayasu | 2006-03-21 23:07:03 | Re: 8.2 planning features |
| Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-03-21 23:00:08 | Re: Automatically setting work_mem |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-03-22 06:20:39 | Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command |
| Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-03-21 23:00:08 | Re: Automatically setting work_mem |