Re: Automatically setting work_mem

From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Automatically setting work_mem
Date: 2006-03-22 16:19:40
Message-ID: C046B91C.1FC29%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom,

On 3/21/06 3:06 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> The real problem we are facing with a whole lot of our optimization
> issues (not only sorting) is that it's not all that trivial to get
> credible experimental results that we can expect will hold up across
> a range of usage scenarios.

As proven by the qsort tests - point taken.

- Luke

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-03-22 16:55:32 Re: Recursive calls to functions that return sets
Previous Message William ZHANG 2006-03-22 15:53:54 Re: Modular Type Libraries: was A real currency type

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Csaba Nagy 2006-03-22 16:19:58 Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command
Previous Message Mark Wong 2006-03-22 15:52:32 Re: Patch Submission Guidelines