On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 00:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> I'm considering changing hashbuild to switch over at shared_buffers instead
> >>> of effective_cache_size --- any thoughts about that?
> >>
> >> Switching to shared_buffers gets my vote, on my test table with
> >> 50,000,000 rows it takes about 8 minutes to create an index using the
> >> default effective_cache_size. With effective_cache_size set to 6GB
> >> (machine has 8GB) its still going an hour later.
>
> > Agreed. I think using shared_buffers as a cutoff is a much better idea as well.
>
> Already done in CVS a week or so back, but thanks for following up with
> some confirmation.
I think nobody noticed that change, or the discussion.
I wasn't very happy with effective_cache_size and not happy with
shared_buffers either. If building hash indexes is memory critical then
we just need to say so and encourage others to set memory use correctly.
People are already aware that maintenance_work_mem needs to be increased
for large index builds and we will confuse people if we ignore that and
use another parameter instead. At the very least, a controllable
parameter is the only appropriate choice for production systems, not one
that cannot be changed without restart. It would also throw away any
chance of having pg_restore of hash indexes run in parallel, since it
will not be able to control memory usage. Setting maintenance_work_mem
higher than shared buffers is easily possible now and we should just use
that rather than try to prejudge how people will and can configure their
systems. If maintenance_work_mem default is too low, lets increase it.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
