Message-ID: <4E6E830E.30701@missouri.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:09:18 -0500
From: Robert Schnabel <schnabelr@missouri.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64;
	rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
CC: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Allow sorts to use more available memory
References: <4E6E426D.7060405@missouri.edu>
	<CAOR=d=1WgWOPz+8t9FqqNbbabNKu6DOm-z0S1MJ0jGe+FsRGfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOR=d=1WgWOPz+8t9FqqNbbabNKu6DOm-z0S1MJ0jGe+FsRGfw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 9/12/2011 3:58 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Robert Schnabel
> <schnabelr@missouri.edu>  wrote:
>> The recent "data warehouse" thread made me think about how I use work_mem
>> for some of my big queries.  So I tried SET work_mem = '4GB' for a session
>> and got
>>
>> ERROR: 4194304 is outside the valid range for parameter "work_mem" (64 ..
>> 2097151)
> Ubuntu 10.10, pgsql 8.4.8:
>
> smarlowe=# set work_mem='1000GB';
> SET

Ok, so is this a limitation related to the Windows implementation?

And getting back to the to-do list entry and reading the related posts, 
it appears that even if you could set work_mem that high it would only 
use 2GB anyway.  I guess that was the second part of my question.  Is 
that true?