Re: [GENERAL] sort mem: size in RAM vs size on Disk

2011-03-11 Thread Igor Neyman
> -Original Message- > From: mark [mailto:dvlh...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:37 AM > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: sort mem: size in RAM vs size on Disk > > Hi all, > > > I am wondering if anyone has any estimates on how much larger > a working set for

Re: [GENERAL] sort mem: size in RAM vs size on Disk

2011-03-10 Thread mark
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > What version of PostgreSQL are you using? sort_mem is now called > work_mem (to better reflect the reality that it isn't just used in > sorting, I think), and has been for some time. > > -- > Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

Re: [GENERAL] sort mem: size in RAM vs size on Disk

2011-03-10 Thread Peter Geoghegan
What version of PostgreSQL are you using? sort_mem is now called work_mem (to better reflect the reality that it isn't just used in sorting, I think), and has been for some time. -- Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services --

[GENERAL] sort mem: size in RAM vs size on Disk

2011-03-10 Thread mark
Hi all, I am wondering if anyone has any estimates on how much larger a working set for a sort is when the query execution puts it in memory vs when it spills out to disk. It seems like sorts in memory are larger than they are if they still out to disk. (which I could understand), I am just looki