Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Date: 2016-09-08 17:23:17
Message-ID: CAM3SWZSve1utUde-hsBpwq6MkP438i8fMU=QuAb0D6LWow+KLg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> That particular case I believe is using work_mem=4MB, easy strings, 1.5GB table.

Cool. I wonder where this leaves Heikki's draft patch, that completely
removes batch memory, etc.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2016-09-08 17:32:14 DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING option for vacuumdb
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-09-08 17:19:10 Re: Is tuplesort_heap_siftup() a misnomer?