Re: maintenance_work_mem + create index

From: Uwe Bartels <uwe(dot)bartels(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: maintenance_work_mem + create index
Date: 2011-03-24 14:40:33
Message-ID: AANLkTikQO+y2nWz4SjjUMKkGDCVFFL0Z_8bu9poUyk=9@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

OK. I didn't now that. Thanks for sharing that information.
Can anybody tell if we have this limitation on maintenance_work_mem as well?

Does anybody know of a solution out of that on Linux?
Or is there a dynamic way to put $PGDATA/base/pgsql_tmp into RAM without
blocking it completely like a ram disk?

Best Regards,
Uwe

On 24 March 2011 15:13, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

> Uwe,
>
> * Uwe Bartels (uwe(dot)bartels(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > So I checked this again and raised afterwards maintenance_work_mem step
> by
> > step up 64GB.
> > I logged in via psql, run the following statements
> > set maintenance_work_mem = '64GB';
>
> I believe maintenance_work_mem suffers from the same problem that
> work_mem has, specifically that PG still won't allocate more than
> 1GB of memory for any single operation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk2LUW8ACgkQrzgMPqB3kigZMwCfUVL/5nSdK5xiV+/SjWB6BG9B
> Fm0An2V5Tald8PUYXc5VIuKL/C1WNYTp
> =MSxh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shaun Thomas 2011-03-24 15:14:01 Re: maintenance_work_mem + create index
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2011-03-24 14:13:03 Re: maintenance_work_mem + create index