On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 03:25:04PM +0000, Campbell, Lance wrote: > Thanks for sharing this thread. My suggestion of having a work_mem_stack_size > is the same concept mentioned in this thread regarding having a work_mem_pool. > I prefer this later term rather than the one I was using. When the work mem > pool is exhausted PostgreSQL just uses temp files for work_mem. With current > statics for temp files and with a new stats on a work mem pool usage a user > could fine tune memory much more precisely. It would leave the “art of memory > tuning” behind. The other added benefit is that people would have a better > understanding of how work_mem is used by naturally having to explain what a > work_mem_pool is and when it is drawn on. There are probably a lot of > PostgreSQL instance that would run faster just by having the confidence to > increase the size of work_mem. I am sure many instances have this value set to > low. Uh, did you read the blog before it, referenced in that blog entry: https://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2018.html#December_7_2018 Even if we have a pool, it is still complex to configure memory, but it might help. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
