On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote:
> > And even when PostgreSQL has the server all to itself, having a hashagg
> > spill to disk is *way* better than pushing the machine into a swap
> > storm. At least if you spill the hashagg you only have one backend
> > running at a snail's pace; a swap storm means next to nothing gets done.
> >
> >> This was/is an example of where the behavior of PostgreSQL is clearly
> >> unacceptable. OK, yes, this problem goes away with an ANALYZE, but it
> >> isn't clear how anyone could have known this, and unexpected behavior is
> >> bad in any product.
> >
> > Care to submit a documentation patch before releases are bundled (I
> > think on Sunday?) At least then people would be aware that work_mem is
> > just a suggestion to hash_aggs. I'd do a patch myself but I doubt I'll
> > have time before the release. :(
>
> I would be glad too. What's the process?
Well, find the appropriate file in doc/src/sgml, make a copy, edit the
file, generate a diff with diff -u, and email that diff/patch to
pgsql-patches.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
