Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs
От | Dimitrios Apostolou |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c47e4eb0-c00b-753b-f39f-fea6252a1f54@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: