On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 03:15:59PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> A
> refinement might be to try to consider an inferior plan that uses less
> memory when the system is tight on memory, rather than waiting. But
> you'd have to be careful about that, because waiting might be better
> (it's worth wait
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 03:15:59PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> A
>> refinement might be to try to consider an inferior plan that uses less
>> memory when the system is tight on memory, rather than waiting. But
>> you'd have to be
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:37:16AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout
> > (It doesn't help in situations where you can't accurately predict
> > memory usage, like hash tables.)
>
> Not sure what you mean by this part. We already predict how much
>
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:37:16AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout
>> > (It doesn't help in situations where you can't accurately predict
>> > memory usage, like hash tables.)
>>
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Mark Wong wrote:
> http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~dewitt/includes/publications.html
>
> Some of these papers aren't the type of parallelism we're talking
> about here, but the ones that I think are relevant talk mostly about
> parallelizing hash based joins. I think w
