From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Choice of bitmap scan over index scan
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:15:37 -0500
Message-ID: <603c8f071001111415q11e5731dm3bfee4f1f4926919@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B4B7ED4.8070208@wizmail.org>
References: <d4468d971001100428v30236b55nb4cc82d216c7819e@mail.gmail.com>
<4B49DE7F.8080808@wizmail.org>
<603c8f071001101853p6dd9517bofb7fcef43c97d79e@mail.gmail.com>
<4B4B7ED4.8070208@wizmail.org>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Jeremy Harris <jgh@wizmail.org> wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 02:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Jeremy Harris<jgh@wizmail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Needing to use an external (on-disk) sort method, when taking
>>> only 90MB, looks odd.
>
> [...]
>>
>> Well, you'd need to have work_mem> 90 MB for that not to happen, and
>> very few people can afford to set that setting that high. If you have
>> a query with three or four sorts using 90 MB a piece, and five or ten
>> users running them, you can quickly kill the box...
>
> Oh. That's, um, a real pity given the cost of going external. Any hope
> of a more dynamic allocation of memory resource in the future?
> Within a single query plan, the number of sorts is known; how about
> a sort-mem limit per query rather than per sort (as a first step)?
Unfortunately, it's not the case that the number of sorts is known -
the amount of memory available to the sort affects its cost, so if we
knew we were going to have more or less memory it would affect whether
we chose the plan involving the sort in the first place.
My previous musings on this topic are here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-10/msg00125.php
...Robert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: robertmhaas@gmail.com, jgh@wizmail.org
Subject: Re: Choice of bitmap scan over index scan
In-Reply-To: <603c8f071001111415q11e5731dm3bfee4f1f4926919@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox