Hi Tomas > If 128MB is insufficient, why would 256MB be OK? A factor of 2x does not > make a fundamental difference ... agree > Anyway, the 128MB value is rather arbitrary. I don't mind increasing the > limit, or possibly removing it entirely (and accepting anything the > system can handle). yes, I mean by this is that the maximum value is not friendly to large instances if the setting is small ，In the real production instance , many sub-tables with the same table structure are often encountered
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 1:58 AM Tomas Vondra <to...@vondra.me> wrote: > On 12/26/24 17:00, wenhui qiu wrote: > > Hi > > > > As far as I know, more than 10,000 tables of instances are often > > encountered, > > So I insist that the maximum can be appropriately increased to 256MB， > > Can be more adaptable to many table situations > > > > If 128MB is insufficient, why would 256MB be OK? A factor of 2x does not > make a fundamental difference ... > > Anyway, the 128MB value is rather arbitrary. I don't mind increasing the > limit, or possibly removing it entirely (and accepting anything the > system can handle). > > > regards > > -- > Tomas Vondra > >
