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
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 |