Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WzkagTXz5dOxrHKQVJF-keS15bCLBDwd7pGMbTEZDqeS4Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:57 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > To be clear, by "escape hatch" you mean "add a GUC that instructs the PostgreSQL executor to ignore hash_mem when decidingwhether to spill the contents of the hash table to disk - IOW to never spill the contents of a hash table to disk"? Yes, that's what that means. > If so that seems separate from whether to add a hash_mem GUC to provide finer grained control - people may well want both. They might want the escape hatch too, as an additional measure, but my assumption is that anybody in favor of the hash_mem/hash_mem_multiplier proposal takes that position because they think that it's the principled solution. That's the kind of subtlety that is bound to get lost when summarizing general sentiment at a high level. In any case no individual has seriously argued that there is a simultaneous need for both -- at least not yet. This thread is already enormous, and very hard to keep up with. I'm trying to draw a line under the discussion. For my part, I have compromised on the important question of the default value of hash_mem_multiplier -- I am writing a new version of the patch that makes the default 1.0 (i.e. no behavioral changes by default). > I would prefer DavidJ as an abbreviation - my middle initial can be dropped when referring to me. Sorry about that. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: