On Nov 18, 2007 8:29 AM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:12 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > Note that my best time was at around 16 Meg work_mem. This data set
> > is MUCH bigger than 16 Meg, it's around 300-400 Meg. But work_mem
> > optimized out at 16 Meg. B
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:12 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Note that my best time was at around 16 Meg work_mem. This data set
> is MUCH bigger than 16 Meg, it's around 300-400 Meg. But work_mem
> optimized out at 16 Meg. Btw, I tried it going as high as 768 Meg,
> and it was still slower than 1
Bill Moran a écrit :
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:08:57 -0600
"Campbell, Lance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
with the number. Is there a query I could do that would tell me if
PostgreSql is performing SQL that could use more memory
On Nov 9, 2007 2:38 PM, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I imagine in a few years, hardly anyone using postgresql will remember
> > the ancient art of having either apostrophes in a row inside your
> > plpgsql functions...
>
> Speaking of that devil, I started working with Postgres m
On Nov 9, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007 1:19 PM, Campbell, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is amazing, how after working with databases very actively for
over 8
years, I am still learning things.
The fun thing about postgresql is that just when you've got it figu
On Nov 9, 2007 1:19 PM, Campbell, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is amazing, how after working with databases very actively for over 8
> years, I am still learning things.
The fun thing about postgresql is that just when you've got it figured
out, somebody will come along and improve it in
: Scott Marlowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Campbell, Lance
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] work_mem and shared_buffers
On Nov 9, 2007 12:08 PM, Campbell, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you
On Nov 9, 2007 12:08 PM, Campbell, Lance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
> with the number. Is there a query I could do that would tell me if
> PostgreSql is performing SQL that could use more memory for sorting?
Trial and error.
, 2007 2:08 PM
To: Campbell, Lance
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] work_mem and shared_buffers
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:08:57 -0600
"Campbell, Lance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
>
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:08:57 -0600
"Campbell, Lance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know when you should up the value of work_mem? Just play
> with the number. Is there a query I could do that would tell me if
> PostgreSql is performing SQL that could use more memory for sorting?
8.2 an
] work_mem and shared_buffers
Campbell, Lance wrote:
> Does the amount of memory allocate to work_mem get subtracted from
> shared_buffers?
>
> Example:
>
> If work_mem is 1M and there are 10 connections and shared_buffers is
> 100M then would the total be 90 M left for shared_
Campbell, Lance wrote:
Does the amount of memory allocate to work_mem get subtracted from
shared_buffers?
Example:
If work_mem is 1M and there are 10 connections and shared_buffers is
100M then would the total be 90 M left for shared_buffers?
Or does the amount of memory allocated for work_mem
Does the amount of memory allocate to work_mem get subtracted from
shared_buffers?
Example:
If work_mem is 1M and there are 10 connections and shared_buffers is
100M then would the total be 90 M left for shared_buffers?
Or does the amount of memory allocated for work_mem have nothing to
13 matches
Mail list logo
