Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort memory
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2004-01-31T22:29:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote: >> So, what I'd like to do is make btree index creation pay attention to >> vacuum_mem instead of sort_mem, and rename the vacuum_mem parameter to >> some more-generic name indicating that it's used for more than just >> VACUUM. Any objections so far? > Why not create a seperate index_mem variable instead? index creation > tends to be, I think, less frequent then vacuum, so having a higher value > for index_mem then vacuum_mem may make sense ... Well, maybe. What's in the back of my mind is that we may come across other cases besides CREATE INDEX and VACUUM that should use a "one-off" setting. I think it'd make more sense to have one parameter than keep on inventing new ones. For comparison, SortMem is used for quite a few different purposes, but I can't recall anyone needing to tweak an individual one of those purposes other than CREATE INDEX. regards, tom lane