Re: optimizer cost calculation problem

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: optimizer cost calculation problem
Date: 2003-04-01 16:10:23
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0304010910090.13402-100000@css120.ihs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > BTW it does not 2 gig, but 1 gig (remember that we do sortmembytes *
> > 2) .
>
> Good point. Probably that particular calculation should be
> "sortmembytes * 2.0" to force it to double before it can overflow.
> But I still think we'd better limit SortMem so that the basic
> SortMem*1024 calculation can't overflow (or even come close to overflow,
> likely).

This isn't really an issue for 64 bit hardware is it?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-04-01 16:24:01 Re: optimizer cost calculation problem
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2003-04-01 15:40:29 Dangling backends on win32 7.2.1 port (peerdirect).