"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> We would only look at dynamically changing work_mem in those few
> restricted cases where we track that against the work_mem limit. If we
> hit that limit, we would make a request to the central pool: "Can I be
> allotted another 2MB please?" (etc). The central allotment mechanism
> would then say Yes or No. If allotted the memory, the backend would then
> palloc up to that limit. The backend may return later for additional
> allotments, but for now it has been allowed to dynamically increase its
> memory usage. This allotment would be noted in the memory context
> header, so that when the memory context is freed, the allotment can be
> "returned" to the central pool by a deallotment call. This is now easier
> than before since each sort within a query has its own memory context.
>
Interesting, I understand that shared_work_mem is process-wise,
allocate-when-use, request-may-or-may-not-get-it (as you have pointed out,
this may make planner in a hard situation if we are sensitive to work_mem).
But I still have something unclear. Let's say we have a sort operation need
1024 memory. So the DBA may have the following two options:
(1) SET work_mem = 1024; SET shared_work_mem = 0; do sort;
(2) SET work_mem = 512; SET shared_work_mem = 512; do sort;
So what's the difference between these two strategy?
(1) Running time: do they use the same amount of memory? Why option 2 is
better than 1?
(2) Idle time: after sort done, option 1 will return all 1024 to the OS and
2 will still keep 512?
Regards,
Qingqing
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
