On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:50:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Again, let's see some evidence that it's worth putting effort into that.
>(Offhand it seems this is probably an easier fix than changing the
>shared-memory allocation code; but conventional wisdom is that really
>large values of work_mem are a bad idea, and I'm not sure I see the case
>for maintenance_work_mem above 2Gb either.)
Hmm. That would be a fairly hard thing to test, no? I wouldn't expect to
see a smooth curve as the value is increased--I'd expect it to remain
fairly flat until you hit the sweet spot where you can fit the whole
working set into RAM. When you say "2Gb", does that imply that the
memory allocation limit in 8.1 has been increased from 1G-1?
Mike Stone