On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to benchmark the patch!
Also, I should point out that you didn't add work_mem past the point where the master branch will get slower, while the patch continues to get faster. This seems to happen fairly reliably, certainly if work_mem is sized at about 1GB, and often at lower settings. With the POWER7 "Hydra" server, external sorting for a CREATE INDEX operation could put any possible maintenance_work_mem setting to good use -- my test case got faster with a 15GB maintenance_work_mem setting (the server has 64GB of ram). I think I tried 25GB as a maintenance_work_mem setting next, but started to get OOM errors at that point. Again, I point this out because I want to account for why my numbers were better (for the benefit of other people -- I think you get this, and are being fair). -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
