| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Steven M(dot) Wheeler" <swheeler(at)sabre(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] Questions about vacuum analyze |
| Date: | 1999-10-12 15:17:40 |
| Message-ID: | 16693.939741460@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
"Steven M. Wheeler" <swheeler(at)sabre(dot)com> writes:
> I tried your suggestion for -S 32 through -S 1 running a select
> distinct against my history table. I normally run with -S 2048 on the
> startup of the master process. FYI: the history table uses the same
> layout as the currnt table, its just an hourly summation of the minute
> by minute data in currnt. history has 189,724 records.
> Bottom line: The select never failed.
My current theory is that you were running out of disk space or else
running up against a 4-gig-per-temp-file limit in the sort that's done
for SELECT DISTINCT. So -S wouldn't really affect matters, and testing
on a smaller table definitely won't prove anything one way or the other.
BTW, I believe -S 32 is the smallest value the backend will actually
accept --- it just ignores any attempt to set a smaller value.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steven M. Wheeler | 1999-10-12 16:16:11 | Re: [SQL] Questions about vacuum analyze |
| Previous Message | Steven M. Wheeler | 1999-10-12 14:55:49 | Re: [SQL] Questions about vacuum analyze |