Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem
Date: 2018-05-02 15:46:30
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob-_MwpkXpKAGWs8-_m4Ph=zgqL7ZnHywgCGeP0h8i-BA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> To fix, I propose that we change the above so that we always subtract
> tapeSpace, but if there is less than e.g. 32 kB of memory left after that
> (including, if it went below 0), then we bump availMem back up to 32 kB. So
> we'd always reserve 32 kB to hold the tuples, even if that means that we
> exceed 'work_mem' slightly.

Sounds very reasonable.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-05-02 15:48:29 Re: stats_ext test fails with -DCATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-05-02 15:45:13 Re: doc fixes: vacuum_cleanup_index_scale_factor