| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples | 
| Date: | 2012-11-15 17:29:19 | 
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_UmQQLzgquM8b-fpgKKHLPpQGjw3mvZThFEtsXNJ=Ze5A@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 15 November 2012 16:09, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm still not too sure why this part is OK:
>
>         /* This may not be our first time through */
>         if (newmemtupsize <= memtupsize)
>             return false;
>
> Suppose we enlarge the memtuples array by something other than a
> multiple of 2, and then we kick out all of the tuples that are
> currently in memory and load a new group with a smaller average size.
> ISTM that it could now appear that the memtuples array can be useful
> further enlarged, perhaps by as little as one tuple, and that that
> this could happen repeatedly.  I think we should either refuse to grow
> the array unless we can increase it by at least, say, 10%, or else set
> a flag after the final enlargement that acts as a hard stop to any
> further growth.
I thought that the flag added to Tuplesortstate in earlier revisions
was a little bit ugly. I can see the concern though, and I suppose
that given the alternative is to add a heuristic, simply using a flag
may be the best way to proceed.
-- 
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-11-15 17:53:15 | another idea for changing global configuration settings from SQL | 
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-11-15 17:14:54 | Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples |