X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8546FD76C2 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:19:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83907-08 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:19:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68704D7682 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:19:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j7PKJovh014787; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:19:50 -0400 (EDT) To: andrew@pillette.com Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: What *_mem to increase when running CLUSTER In-reply-to: <430E1AF6.9030803@pillette.com> References: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD1D2@Herge.rcsinc.local> <430E1AF6.9030803@pillette.com> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Lazarus message dated "Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:24:38 -0700" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:19:50 -0400 Message-ID: <14786.1125001190@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/423 X-Sequence-Number: 14170 Andrew Lazarus writes: > Should I temporarily increase sort_mem, vacuum_mem, neither, or both > when doing a CLUSTER on a large (100 million row) table The only part of that job that can use lots of memory is the index rebuilds. In recent PG versions maintenance_work_mem is the thing to increase for an index build; previously sort_mem controlled it. I forget when the changeover was; maybe 8.0. regards, tom lane