Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
Date: 2020-07-13 16:47:36
Message-ID: 20200713164736.GA25726@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

On 2020-Jul-13, Jeff Davis wrote:

> On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 02:25 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > Updated summary:
> > * For hash_mem = Tomas [7], Justin [16]
> > * For hash_mem_multiplier with a default > 1.0 = DavidG [21]
> > * For hash_mem_multiplier with default = 1.0 = PeterG [15][0], Tom
> > [20][24]
>
> I am OK with these options, but I still prefer a simple escape hatch.

I'm in favor of hash_mem_multiplier. I think a >1 default is more
sensible than =1 in the long run, but if strategic vote is what we're
doing, then I support the =1 option.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message J Lumby 2020-07-13 17:47:53 TIMESTAMP <string-literal>
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-07-13 16:20:32 Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2020-07-13 16:53:48 PostgreSQL 13 Beta 3 Release Date
Previous Message Jesse Zhang 2020-07-13 16:31:58 Fix header identification