Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
Date
Msg-id 2463591.1594514874@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I don't know, but one of the main arguments against simply suggesting
> people to bump up work_mem (if they're hit by the hashagg spill in v13)
> was that it'd increase overall memory usage for them. It seems strange
> to then propose a new GUC set to a default that would result in higher
> memory usage *for everyone*.

It seems like a lot of the disagreement here is focused on Peter's
proposal to make hash_mem_multiplier default to 2.0.  But it doesn't
seem to me that that's a critical element of the proposal.  Why not just
make it default to 1.0, thus keeping the default behavior identical
to what it is now?

If we find that's a poor default, we can always change it later;
but it seems to me that the evidence for a higher default is
a bit thin at this point.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: StartupMessage parameters - free-form or not?
Next
From: Jaka Jančar
Date:
Subject: Re: StartupMessage parameters - free-form or not?