Horton

Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-09-16T13:47:14Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Pavan Deolasee
> <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But I actually wonder if we are over engineering things and
> overestimating
> > cost of memmove etc. How about this simpler approach:
>
> Don't forget that you need to handle the case where
> maintenance_work_mem is quite small.
>
>
How small? The default IIRC these days is 64MB and minimum is 1MB. I think
we can do some special casing for very small values and ensure that things
at the very least work and hopefully don't regress for them.

Thanks,
Pavan

-- 
 Pavan Deolasee                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Prefetch blocks during lazy vacuum's truncation scan

  2. Explain unaccounted for space in pgstattuple.