On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since we know the predicted size of the sort set prior to starting the
> > sort node, could we not use that information to allocate memory
> > appropriately? i.e. if sort size is predicted to be more th
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since we know the predicted size of the sort set prior to starting the
> sort node, could we not use that information to allocate memory
> appropriately? i.e. if sort size is predicted to be more than twice the
> size of work_mem, then just move straight to
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 10:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If not, I would propose that when we move from qsort to tapesort mode we
> > free the larger work_mem setting (if one exists) and allocate only a
> > lower, though still optimal setting for the tapesort
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If not, I would propose that when we move from qsort to tapesort mode we
> free the larger work_mem setting (if one exists) and allocate only a
> lower, though still optimal setting for the tapesort. That way the
> memory can be freed for use by other users
