Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs
Date: 2024-07-18 10:03:40
Message-ID: CAApHDvq4aeB2fGJPFohMDn=egBCmRYAeCjDV0mrDrrbm4DPKVQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 at 21:24, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If those GUCs are enabled, the planner consumes large amount of memory
> and also takes longer irrespective of whether partitionwise plan is
> used or not. That's why the default is false. If majority of those
> joins use nested loop memory, or use index scans instead sorting,
> memory consumption won't be as large. Saying that it "can" result in
> large increase in execution memory is not accurate. But I agree that
> we need to mention the effect of work_mem on partitionwise
> join/aggregation.

hmm? please tell me what word other than "can" best describes
something that is possible to happen but does not always happen under
all circumstances.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nitin Motiani 2024-07-18 10:17:26 Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication
Previous Message Nitin Motiani 2024-07-18 10:00:41 Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication