> I believe that user could get GIN's error about work_mem only intentionally: > - turn off autovacuum
Meanwhile, in the other thread, we're having a discussion about people wanting to do exactly this on a database-wide basis during peak load hours... > - set big work_mem > - populate table with GIN index (by needed number of insertion) > - prepare query which will return a lot of results (possibly, with > seqscan=off because cost of scan of pending list grows fast) > - decrease work_mem for at least ten times > - execute query Why would the new work_mem need to be 10x smaller than the old work mem? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
