From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort memory |
Date: | 2004-01-31 22:29:26 |
Message-ID: | 8306.1075588166@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So, what I'd like to do is make btree index creation pay attention to
>> vacuum_mem instead of sort_mem, and rename the vacuum_mem parameter to
>> some more-generic name indicating that it's used for more than just
>> VACUUM. Any objections so far?
> Why not create a seperate index_mem variable instead? index creation
> tends to be, I think, less frequent then vacuum, so having a higher value
> for index_mem then vacuum_mem may make sense ...
Well, maybe. What's in the back of my mind is that we may come across
other cases besides CREATE INDEX and VACUUM that should use a "one-off"
setting. I think it'd make more sense to have one parameter than keep
on inventing new ones. For comparison, SortMem is used for quite a few
different purposes, but I can't recall anyone needing to tweak an
individual one of those purposes other than CREATE INDEX.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-01-31 22:51:31 | Re: Transaction callback |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-01-31 22:10:15 | Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort memory |