Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzm8yJamoxq6rby+h68jzqX+4hzX-L6cvMhu=sQycSVuMg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Responses Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> Independently of this, perhaps we should put in special case in
> dumptuples(), so that it would never create a run with fewer than maxTapes
> tuples. The rationale is that you'll need to hold that many tuples in memory
> during the merge phase anyway, so it seems silly to bail out before that
> while building the initial runs. You're going to exceed work_mem by the
> roughly same amount anyway, just in a different phase. That's not the case
> in this example, but it might happen when sorting extremely wide tuples.

-1 from me. What about the case where only some tuples are massive?

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Sort performance cliff with small work_mem