From: | mark <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: sort mem: size in RAM vs size on Disk |
Date: | 2011-03-10 16:58:18 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=3gXSPVuOq=-WkxhDMF5R6Aq8zoryqssDzDq_Y@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> What version of PostgreSQL are you using? sort_mem is now called
> work_mem (to better reflect the reality that it isn't just used in
> sorting, I think), and has been for some time.
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
>
I hang my head somewhat down in shame as I type this...- 8.3.7
I just used the term "sort mem" as it's the sorting operations that I
am typically seeing spilling over to disk when I check the query with
an explain analyze.
I understand that work_mem is a more accurate description.
in summary it seems that if I see a temp file logged of say 20MB I
need about 40MB of work_mem before it doesn't spill to disk. just
wondering if I am at all accurate with this or if I am way off base.
thanks
-Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rich Shepard | 2011-03-10 17:57:19 | Upgraded to 9.0.3, No Man Pages |
Previous Message | Rich Shepard | 2011-03-10 16:27:27 | Re: Post-Upgrade Question: 9.0.1 -> 9.0.3 |