| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | tỷ lệ kèo bóng |
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
| 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? |