Re: problem with large maintenance_work_mem settings and

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
Cc: Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: problem with large maintenance_work_mem settings and
Date: 2006-03-04 19:39:16
Message-ID: 25568.1141501156@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>>> forgot to mention that this is 8.1.3 compiled from source.
>>
>> See the discussion starting here:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00590.php

> I was following this thread - and it was partly a reason why I'm playing
> with that(the CREATE INDEX on that table finished after about 12 hours
> with a bit less 2GB for maintenance_work_mem(for comparision it took me
> only about 2,5hours to create this table) .

It would be interesting to try the same test with CVS tip to see if the
sorting improvements Simon and I made over the past few weeks help much.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-03-04 19:49:56 Re: EXPLAIN and HashAggregate
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2006-03-04 19:37:01 EXPLAIN and HashAggregate