Re: maintenance_work_mem memory constraint? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bernd Helmle
Subject Re: maintenance_work_mem memory constraint?
Date
Msg-id 286CEB235CBD42AD0EFC2557@imhotep.credativ.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: maintenance_work_mem memory constraint?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: maintenance_work_mem memory constraint?  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
--On Montag, November 26, 2007 13:02:14 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 
wrote:

> Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
>> ... But isn't it worth to special case the
>> code in grow_memtuples() (and maybe other places where sort is likely to
>> use more RAM), so that we can remove this constraint on 64-Bit systems
>> with  many RAM built in? Or am I missing something very important?.
>
> AFAICS this patch can increase the number of sortable tuples by at most 2X
> (less one).  That doesn't seem worth getting very worked up about ...
>
>             regards, tom lane

That's true.

Well, i haven't meant the diff as a discussable patch at all. It's just 
what i've done to understand why we have this limit for tuplesort. afaics, 
the main constraint here is MaxAllocSize, and i just wonder if that doesn't 
introduce unnecessary limits on systems which can use many RAM for index 
creation and wether we can be more generous here. So one idea could be to 
allow larger allocation requests during sorting on systems where we know 
that this is likely to work.

--  Thanks
                   Bernd


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Locating sharedir in PostgreSQL on Windows
Next
From: "Brendan Jurd"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Empty arrays with ARRAY[]