| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: benchmarking the query planner |
| Date: | 2008-12-12 15:08:47 |
| Message-ID: | 5823.1229094527@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> But having said that, I have wondered whether we should consider
>> allowing the sample to grow to fill maintenance_work_mem
> Hm, so I wonder what this does to the time analyze takes. I think it
> would be the only thing where raising maintenance_work_mem would
> actually increase the amount of time an operation takes. Generally
> people raise it to speed up index builds and vacuums etc.
Yeah --- we might need to make it a separate GUC knob instead of tying
it directly to maintenance_work_mem. But still, is *any* fixed-size
sample really going to help much for large tables?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-12 15:10:57 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-12-12 15:06:59 | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |