Thakur, Sameer wrote: > Hello, > >I think it'd be better to combine both numbers into one report: > >It'd also be good to standardize on where the * 100 is happening. > Done > >can be replaced by > >(itemptr->ipblkid != vacrelstats->last_scanned_page) > Get compiler error : invalid operands to binary != (have ‘BlockIdData’ and > ‘BlockIdData’) > >vacrelstats->current_index_scanned_page_count++; > Done > Please find v3 attached. > > I am struggling to create maintenance work memory exhaustion. Did the > following > maintenance_work_mem=1MB. > Inserted 10 million records in tbl1 with 3 indexes. Deleted 5 million and > vacuumed. So far no error. I could keep bumping up the records to say 100 > million and try to get this error. > This seems a tedious manner to simulate maintenance work memory exhaustion. > Is there a better way? > To insert I am using COPY (from a csv which has 10 million records) and > building indexes after insert is complete.
I don't think there's any maintenance work exhaustion that results in an error. The system is designed to use all the memory it is allowed to, and to have other strategies when it's not sufficient to do the whole sort. Not sure what Jim meant. Maybe he meant to be aware of when spilling to disk happens? Obviously, things become slower, so maybe you need to consider it for progress reporting purposes. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
