From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GIN fast update technique and work_mem |
Date: | 2013-10-24 12:07:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqF9CR-THADB85y7tYVz-W8WZ9sqej5vz-DT8NxwVgr6mQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2013-10-24 18:40:46 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> While going through the documentation for GIN fast update technique, I read -
>>
>> "...or if the pending list becomes too large (larger than work_mem),
>> the entries are moved to the main GIN data structure using the same
>> bulk insert techniques used during initial index creation."
>>
>> The "work_mem" links to work_mem setting documentation.
>>
>> Whereas in the src/backend/access/gin/README, as one of the features
>> of GIN, I read -
>>
>> "...* Optimized index creation (Makes use of maintenance_work_mem to accumulate
>> postings in memory.)"
>>
>> So, which one is it - work_mem or maintenance_work_mem?
>>
>> Or are these things unrelated?
>
> Yes. One is about the initial index creation, the other about insertions
> into an existing index.
>
> Greetings,
>
Hmm, okay. So, work_mem allocations are also involved in case of GIN
index updates (if FASTUPDATE is on)?
Thanks.
--
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-10-24 13:04:45 | Re: Replication and fsync |
Previous Message | Rémi Cura | 2013-10-24 12:04:56 | GIST index : order Hack : getting the order used by CLUSTER .. USING my_index |