> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> So, what I'd like to do is make btree index creation pay > > >attention to> vacuum_mem instead of sort_mem, and rename the > > >vacuum_mem parameter to> some more-generic name indicating that > > >it's used for more than just> VACUUM. Any objections so far? > > > > > Why not create a seperate index_mem variable instead? index > > > creation tends to be, I think, less frequent then vacuum, so > > > having a higher value for index_mem then vacuum_mem may make sense > > > ... > > > > Well, maybe. What's in the back of my mind is that we may come > > across other cases besides CREATE INDEX and VACUUM that should use a > > "one-off" setting. I think it'd make more sense to have one > > parameter than keep on inventing new ones. For comparison, SortMem > > is used for quite a few different purposes, but I can't recall > > anyone needing to tweak an individual one of those purposes other > > than CREATE INDEX. >
I don't know if this would apply here - but foriegn key creation also benefits hugely from jacking up sort_mem and you also don't do too many of those in parellel. I'm guessing it would be quite in-elegant and kludgy to make that code use the bigger pool.. it would benefit restore times though. -- Jeff Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.jefftrout.com/ http://www.stuarthamm.net/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
