Hi,
On 26 August 2011 00:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Ondrej_Ivani=C4=8D?= writes:
>> work_mem is set to 4 000 000 kb and I do not understand why few
>> queries (3 and 5) used disk and the rest fit were able to data into
>> memory.
>
> The on-disk representation of sort data is quite a bit mo
=?UTF-8?Q?Ondrej_Ivani=C4=8D?= writes:
> work_mem is set to 4 000 000 kb and I do not understand why few
> queries (3 and 5) used disk and the rest fit were able to data into
> memory.
The on-disk representation of sort data is quite a bit more compact than
the in-memory representation. So where
Hi,
I have several queries in *single* transaction and I want to figure
out reasonable work_mem value. Here is the excerpt from "explain plan"
-- each query has two sorts:
1) Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 6 324kB
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 1 932 13
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 02:15 -0800, wstrzalka wrote:
> Isn't it possible to sort only fields that order matters & some row
> identifier/position (don't really know what - oid/ctid are tight to
> table but something temporary tight to 'resultset')? It would take
> much less memory and could be proces
It's kind of lame questions, possibly I'm missing something but my
doubts are as follow:
When planner/executor needs to sort rowsit sorts whole records (i
think so). So in the case when there are many wide columns it takes
quite a lot of memory and sort goes out to the disk because it excess
the w
