Re: in-memory sorting

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Samuel Gendler
Тема Re: in-memory sorting
Дата
Msg-id AANLkTikMVWcvX7qPcxxgg4km7KiK069K77hpY6Hs+Pf6@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: in-memory sorting  (Samuel Gendler <sgendler@ideasculptor.com>)
Список pgsql-performance


On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Samuel Gendler <sgendler@ideasculptor.com> wrote:
Incidentally, if I set values on the connection before querying, is there an easy way to get things back to default values or will my code need to know the prior value and explicitly set it back?  Something like 

<get connection from pool>
set work_mem = '512MB'
query
set value = 'default'
<return connection to pool>

or maybe

<get connection from pool>
BEGIN;
set work_mem='512MB'
select query
ROLLBACK;
<return connection to pool>


I guess I'm getting the hang of this whole postgres thing because those were both wild guesses and both of them appear to work.

set work_mem=default sets it to the value in the config file, and setting within a transaction and rolling back also restores the original value.

 

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
Exactly, it's about the concurrency.  I have a server with 128G ram
but it runs dozens of queries at a time for hundreds of clients a
second.  The chance that something big for work_mem might jump up and
bite me are pretty good there.  Even so, at 16Meg it's not really big
for that machine, and I might test cranking it up. Note that large
work_mem can cause the kernel to flush its cache, which means going to
disk for everybody's data, and all the queries are slow instead of
one.  Keep an eye on how high work_mem affects your kernel cache.

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Samuel Gendler
<sgendler@ideasculptor.com> wrote:
> Yeah, although with 48GB of available memory and not that much concurrency,
> I'm not sure it matters that much. But point taken, I'll see about modifying
> the app such that work_mem gets set on a per-query basis.
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Samuel Gendler
>> <sgendler@ideasculptor.com> wrote:
>> > Answered my own question.  Cranking work_mem up to 350MB revealed that
>> > the in-memory sort requires more memory than the disk sort.
>>
>> Note that unless you run VERY few client connections, it's usually
>> better to leave work_mem somewhere in the 1 to 32Meg range and have
>> the connection or user or database that needs 350Meg be set there.
>>
>> I.e.
>>
>> <connect>
>> set work_mem='512MB';
>> <execute query
>>
>> OR
>>
>> alter user memoryhog set work_mem='512MB';
>>
>> OR
>>
>> alter database memhogdb set work_mem='512MB';
>
>



--
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.


В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Samuel Gendler
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: in-memory sorting
Следующее
От: Scott Marlowe
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: in-memory sorting