Re: Tuning Question sort_mem vs pgsql_tmp - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Tuning Question sort_mem vs pgsql_tmp
Date
Msg-id 15245.1044379489@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Tuning Question sort_mem vs pgsql_tmp  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Tuning Question sort_mem vs pgsql_tmp  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-general
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> Does sort_mem have to be larger than the corresponding pgsql_tmp area that
> would be used if postgres runs out of sort_mem?

Probably.  At least in recent versions, the "do we still fit in
sort_mem" logic tries to account for palloc overhead and alignment
padding, neither of which are present in the on-disk representation
of the same tuples.  So data unloaded to disk should be more compact
than it was in memory.  You didn't say what you were sorting, but
if it's narrow rows (like maybe just an int or two) the overhead
could easily be more than the actual data size.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Tuning Question sort_mem vs pgsql_tmp
Next
From: "Johnson, Shaunn"
Date:
Subject: looking for system tables via ODBC