On 11 October 2010 18:48, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes: >> On 11 October 2010 18:37, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Sure it would: an estimate of 30K would keep the planner from using >>> hash aggregation. > >> Not if work_mem was 10MB. > > And? If the memory requirement actually fits, you're in good shape. >
Yeah but the actual memory requirement, if it uses a hash aggregate, is over 1GB, and could easily be much higher. It's also hard to kill, because it eats up that memory so quickly. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
