From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples |
Date: | 2012-10-16 13:24:12 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJyDB_uCx6B_Ux3M45siUH6Axbs2L_+F1PY7J2wnL2fQA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 October 2012 13:42, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 14 October 2012 09:19, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> This is a very useful optimisation, for both the low and the high end.
>
> Well, I'm about ready to mark this one "ready for committer". There is
> this outstanding issue in my revision of August 17th, though:
>
> + /*
> + * XXX: This feels quite brittle; is there a better principled approach,
> + * that does not violate modularity?
> + */
> + newmemtupsize = (int) floor(oldmemtupsize * allowedMem / memNowUsed);
> + state->fin_growth = true;
>
> I suppose that I should just recognise that this *is* nothing more
> than a heuristic, and leave it at that.
It's a simple and reasonable heuristic, and a great improvement on the
previous situation.
If you describe in detail that it is a heuristic and why that is
proposed over other approaches that should be sufficient for future
generations to read and understand.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-16 14:15:27 | Re: Global Sequences |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-10-16 13:20:54 | Re: Global Sequences |