| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
| Date: | 2016-09-13 18:56:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRG7KP4dNCKpNonrVhkX0jdmbJ6v2DP2UD379b3edNmmg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think it's probably wrong to worry that an array-of-arrays is going
> to be meaningfully slower than a single array here. It's basically
> costing you some small number of additional memory references per
> tuple, which I suspect isn't all that relevant for a bulk operation
> that does I/O, writes WAL, locks buffers, etc.
This analysis makes perfect sense to me.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-13 18:58:50 | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-09-13 18:53:42 | Re: kqueue |