Re: Estimate maintenance_work_mem for CREATE INDEX

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Estimate maintenance_work_mem for CREATE INDEX
Date: 2017-12-19 14:14:34
Message-ID: CAM-w4HOOhfif6nao1GU9B-8rzb1vy5YGocW+XFy4HOQmupvZbw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

On 19 December 2017 at 10:00, Oleksandr Shulgin
<oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> wrote:

> If there would be an option in the database itself to provide those
> estimation, we wouldn't even need to figure out estimation queries.
> "EXPLAIN CREATE INDEX" anyone?

You're not the first to propose something like that. I think an
EXPLAIN ALTER TABLE would also be very handy -- it's currently
impossible to tell without carefully reading the source code whether a
given DDL change will require a full table scan, a full table rewrite,
or just a quick meta data update (and even in that case what strength
lock will be required). I think there are other utility statements
that make interesting heuristic decisions that would be nice to be
able to have some visibility into -- CLUSTER comes to mind.

I'm not clear how you would determine how much memory is needed to
sort a table without actually doing the sort though. So that would be
more of an EXPLAIN ANALYZE wouldn't it?

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message scott ribe 2017-12-19 14:29:29 Re: Estimate maintenance_work_mem for CREATE INDEX
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2017-12-19 12:41:18 Re: Background worker process

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marina Polyakova 2017-12-19 14:22:29 Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2017-12-19 14:11:11 Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors