On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Matt Magoffin <postgresql.org@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> No, explain analyze for the query that wouldn't execute before but now >> does, with, I assume, a large work_mem. I'd like to see how it >> differes from the one with smaller work_mem. > > Ah, I pasted that in an earlier email, sent February 10, 2009 9:58:00 AM > GMT+13:00... that plan was the one using still the 128MB of work_mem after > changing the overcommit_ratio to 80. Opps, my bad. I thought that was just explain. I'll go look. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
