Re: [HACKERS] New 9.6 external sort guidance around temp_tablespaces and maintenance_work_mem

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 04:39:22PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 04:23:00PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> Maybe there is a place to emphasize this change in the release notes. > >> I don't

Re: [HACKERS] New 9.6 external sort guidance around temp_tablespaces and maintenance_work_mem

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 04:23:00PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> Maybe there is a place to emphasize this change in the release notes. >> I don't really want to make it about the external sort feature, >> though, because

Re: [HACKERS] New 9.6 external sort guidance around temp_tablespaces and maintenance_work_mem

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 04:23:00PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Maybe there is a place to emphasize this change in the release notes. > I don't really want to make it about the external sort feature, > though, because enabling higher work_mem settings by making sure that > does not disadvantage

Re: [HACKERS] New 9.6 external sort guidance around temp_tablespaces and maintenance_work_mem

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Yes, this needs updating. My point is that there is a whole lot of > things we don't talk about in this area, and should, but I would like it > to be of a consistent level of detail for all areas of performancce. I think

Re: [HACKERS] New 9.6 external sort guidance around temp_tablespaces and maintenance_work_mem

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:19:02PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Presumably due to the old issues with tuplesort, the closest the docs > get to recommending higher work_mem or maintenance_work_mem settings > is: "Larger [maintenance_work_mem] settings might improve performance > for vacuuming

Re: [HACKERS] New 9.6 external sort guidance around temp_tablespaces and maintenance_work_mem

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I think we can expand "21.6. Tablespaces" to describe the implications >> of these new performance characteristics. I'd like to hear opinions on >> how to approach that before proposing a patch, though. > This seems very

Re: [HACKERS] New 9.6 external sort guidance around temp_tablespaces and maintenance_work_mem

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 08:37:54PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Documentation > = > > I think we can expand "21.6. Tablespaces" to describe the implications > of these new performance characteristics. I'd like to hear opinions on > how to approach that before proposing a patch,