Re: work_mem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2021-04-02 at 13:31 +0000, Campbell, Lance wrote:
> It feels like there needs to be work_mem and work_mem_stack_size.  When work memory is
>  needed a process “pops” a token off of a stack.  When it is done processing it “puts”
>  the token back on the stack.  If the stack is empty then don’t allocate memory just
>  write to disk for work_mem. 
> 
> This does two key things:
> 
> 1) It allows for a real world understanding of how much memory is really needed on a
>  day to day basis.  You can track how often a stack is empty.  You can also look at the
>  number of temp files to see when work exceeds the work_mem allocation.  There is no
>  “art” to setting these values.  You can use logical analysis to make choices.
> 
> 2) This also prevents out of memory issues.  You are protecting yourself from extreme loads.

If I get you right, you want another memory limit per session.

I see the point, but then we wouldn't need "work_mem" any more, right?
What is the point of limiting the memory per plan node if we have an
overall limit?

In practice, I have never had trouble with "work_mem".  I usually follow
my rule of thumb: max_connections * work_mem + shared_buffers < RAM

While some backend may need more, many will need less.  Only bitmaps, hashes
and sorts are memory hungry.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe
-- 
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com






[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux