On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:16:04PM -0500, Mark Woodward wrote: > > And even when PostgreSQL has the server all to itself, having a hashagg > > spill to disk is *way* better than pushing the machine into a swap > > storm. At least if you spill the hashagg you only have one backend > > running at a snail's pace; a swap storm means next to nothing gets done. > > > >> This was/is an example of where the behavior of PostgreSQL is clearly > >> unacceptable. OK, yes, this problem goes away with an ANALYZE, but it > >> isn't clear how anyone could have known this, and unexpected behavior is > >> bad in any product. > > > > Care to submit a documentation patch before releases are bundled (I > > think on Sunday?) At least then people would be aware that work_mem is > > just a suggestion to hash_aggs. I'd do a patch myself but I doubt I'll > > have time before the release. :( > > I would be glad too. What's the process?
Well, find the appropriate file in doc/src/sgml, make a copy, edit the file, generate a diff with diff -u, and email that diff/patch to pgsql-patches. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
