Greetings,
* Simon Riggs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
work_mem= 1 GBbenefit at 8 TB
work_mem= 256MB benefit at 0.5 TB
(based upon runs on average twice size of memory, and each logical tape
requiring 256KB memory, i.e. min(work_mem/4, 6) * work_mem * 2, which
for
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suppose I could put quotas in place or something but I don't really
have a problem with the database as a whole using up a bunch of disk
space (hence why it's got alot of room to grow into), I just would have
liked a this will chew up more disk space
Tom,
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've got the same problem with this that I do with the recently-proposed
patch to fail queries with estimated cost X --- to wit, I think it
will result in a net *reduction* in system reliability not an improvement.
Any such feature changes the
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 08:33 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
Greetings,
* Simon Riggs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
work_mem= 1 GB benefit at 8 TB
work_mem= 256MB benefit at 0.5 TB
(based upon runs on average twice size of memory, and each logical tape
requiring 256KB