| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
| Date: | 2016-09-06 17:58:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ4nE+46SAxFd26iXo_wJ4i=G-6UDyUYtPTPjtU8B5byg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> CREATE INDEX could also allocate 218GB, you just need to index enough
> columns and you'll get that.
>
> Aside from the fact that CREATE INDEX will only allocate what is going
> to be used and VACUUM will overallocate, the potential to fully
> allocate the amount given is still there for both cases.
I agree with that, but I think there's a big difference between
allocating the memory only when it's needed and allocating it whether
it is needed or not. YMMV, of course, but that's what I think....
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-06 18:00:44 | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-06 17:57:55 | Re: [PATCH] Alter or rename enum value |