| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleg Golovanov <rentech(at)mail(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II |
| Date: | 2017-11-15 19:05:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20171115190545.vloez3zeqc2n5ysv@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-11-15 10:57:35 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I don't really have a good answer to "but what should we otherwise do",
> > but I'm doubtful this is quite the right answer.
>
> I think that the work_mem model should be replaced by something that
> centrally budgets memory. It would make sense to be less generous with
> sorts and more generous with hash joins when memory is in short
> supply, for example, and a model like this can make that possible. The
> work_mem model has always forced users to be far too conservative.
> Workloads are very complicated, and always having users target the
> worst case leaves a lot to be desired.
Obviously that's nice and worthwhile goal, but it seems more than a bit
out of reach for this patchset.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-15 19:09:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-15 19:00:33 | Re: Updated macOS start scripts |