Re: maintenance_work_mem + create index
| От | Uwe Bartels |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: maintenance_work_mem + create index |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTikQO+y2nWz4SjjUMKkGDCVFFL0Z_8bu9poUyk=9@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: maintenance_work_mem + create index (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: maintenance_work_mem + create index
Re: maintenance_work_mem + create index |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
OK. I didn't now that. Thanks for sharing that information.
Can anybody tell if we have this limitation on maintenance_work_mem as well?
Does anybody know of a solution out of that on Linux?
Or is there a dynamic way to put $PGDATA/base/pgsql_tmp into RAM without blocking it completely like a ram disk?
Best Regards,
Uwe
Can anybody tell if we have this limitation on maintenance_work_mem as well?
Does anybody know of a solution out of that on Linux?
Or is there a dynamic way to put $PGDATA/base/pgsql_tmp into RAM without blocking it completely like a ram disk?
Best Regards,
Uwe
On 24 March 2011 15:13, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Uwe,I believe maintenance_work_mem suffers from the same problem that
* Uwe Bartels (uwe.bartels@gmail.com) wrote:
> So I checked this again and raised afterwards maintenance_work_mem step by
> step up 64GB.
> I logged in via psql, run the following statements
> set maintenance_work_mem = '64GB';
work_mem has, specifically that PG still won't allocate more than
1GB of memory for any single operation.
Thanks,
Stephen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk2LUW8ACgkQrzgMPqB3kigZMwCfUVL/5nSdK5xiV+/SjWB6BG9B
Fm0An2V5Tald8PUYXc5VIuKL/C1WNYTp
=MSxh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: