On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: > That particular case I believe is using work_mem=4MB, easy strings, 1.5GB > table.
Cool. I wonder where this leaves Heikki's draft patch, that completely removes batch memory, etc. -- 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
