Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs
Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net>
From: Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-07-23T17:02:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Thank you for the patch improving the docs, I think it's a clear improvement from before. On Thu, 18 Jul 2024, David Rowley wrote: > I considered writing about work_mem, but felt I wanted to keep it as > brief as possible and just have some words that might make someone > think twice. The details in the work_mem documentation should inform > the reader that work_mem is per executor node. It likely wouldn't > hurt to have more documentation around which executor node types can > use a work_mem, which use work_mem * hash_mem_multiplier and which use > neither. We tend to not write too much about executor nodes in the > documents, so I'm not proposing that for this patch. This is the only part I think is missing, since we now know (measurements in [1], reproducible scenario in [2]) that the number of partitions plays an important role in sizing the RAM of the server. It's just too big to not mention that worst case will be n_partitions * work_mem. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d26e67d3-74bc-60aa-bf24-2a8fb83efe9c%40gmx.net [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/af6ed790-a5fe-19aa-1141-927595604c01%40gmx.net I would also like to add an entry about this issue with links to the above pages, to the TODO page at [3], as this is the only bugtracker I'm aware of. Am I doing it right bringing it up for approval on this list? [3] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo Thanks, Dimitris
Commits
-
Doc: mention executor memory usage for enable_partitionwise* GUCs
- 447e25c04915 12.20 landed
- 5eea78af2d3c 13.16 landed
- 51895d08b41a 14.13 landed
- 27146e79bf03 15.8 landed
- a459e583e06b 16.4 landed
- 3256722d7b7f 17.0 landed
- 057ee9183c21 18.0 landed