Re: Slow GIN indexes after bulk insert
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Slow GIN indexes after bulk insert |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 29866.1458588997@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Slow GIN indexes after bulk insert (Chris Spencer <chrisspen@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
Chris Spencer <chrisspen@gmail.com> writes:
> What constitutes a "large" work_mem? My server has 61GB of memory and my
> work_mem is currently set to include all of that.
Ouch. That's a mistake independently of GIN. The primary usage of
work_mem is to define how much memory an individual sorting or hashing
query step is allowed to use. A complex query might have several sort or
hash steps, and then you need to worry about concurrent queries in
different sessions; not to mention that this is not the only demand on
your server's RAM. I'd be hesitant to set work_mem much above 1GB, maybe
even quite a bit less than that depending on what your workload is like.
Cutting work_mem to ~100MB might alone be enough to fix your GIN issue;
if not you could experiment with forced flushes of the GIN pending lists
via VACUUM (or ANALYZE might do it too, and be more directly useful).
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: