Re: Out of memory on vacuum analyze

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
To: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, John Cole <john(dot)cole(at)uai(dot)com>, "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Out of memory on vacuum analyze
Date: 2007-02-21 06:58:02
Message-ID: 45DBED7A.3010404@kaltenbrunner.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> You told PostgreSQL that you have 900MB available for
>> maintenance_work_mem, but your OS is denying the request. Try *lowering*
>> that setting to something that your OS will allow. That seems like an
>> awfully high setting to me.
>
> 900MB isn't that unreasonable if you're building indexes on a restore or
> something similar. I have run into issues when trying to set it much
> over 1G, though... on various OSes and platforms.

versions before 8.2 have some issues(mostly reporting bogus errors) with
very large settings for maintenance_work_mem. 8.2 and up are behaving
more sanely but I don't think they can actually make anything better
with values in the GB range.
Have you actually measured a performance improvment going beyond
250-350MB(that seemed about to be the sweet spot last I tested) or so
for index creation and friends ?

Stefan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matteo Beccati 2007-02-21 08:15:58 Odd behaviour of timestamptz
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2007-02-21 06:20:00 Re: postgresql vs mysql