On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The problem case is when you have 1 batch and the increased memory
>> consumption causes you to switch to 2 batches. That's expensive. It
>> seems clear based on previous testing that *on
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> The problem case is when you have 1 batch and the increased memory
> consumption causes you to switch to 2 batches. That's expensive. It
> seems clear based on previous testing that *on the average*
> NTUP_PER_BUCKET = 1 will be better, bu
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:13 AM, b8flowerfire wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. But i don't think it is very convincible.
> Simply reduce the value of NTUP_PER_BUCKET will enlarge the pointer array
> and reduce the tuples in one batch. But is that effect significant to the
> performance?
> The
Robert Haas wrote
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:06 AM, b8flowerfire <
> b8flowerfire@
> > wrote:
>
> This has come up before. Basically, the problem is that if you reduce
> NTUP_PER_BUCKET, the bucket array gets larger, which might reduce the
> amount of space available for tuples to the point whe
