On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Kuzmenkov writes:
>> The updated version looks good to me.
>
> LGTM too. Pushed with some trivial cosmetic adjustments.
>
> regards, tom lane
Thank you both!
Best regards,
Anton
Hi,
attached is the patch that uses two memory contexts.
One for calling the inner consistent function,
and a new one for keeping the traversal memory of the inner consistent function.
I run some test to compare the memory footprints. I report the total maximum
memory usage (sum of all children)
>> The better alternative may be to have two temporary memory contexts,
>> one per-tuple for calling the inner consistent method and one
>> per-index-scan for the traversal memory.
>
>
> Yes, this seems to be a better way of fixing the problem without introducing
> regressions mentioned by Tom. We'
Hi Alexander,
thanks for the feedback.
> I can reproduce the high memory consumption with your queries.
>
> Looking at the patch, I see that you changed the lifetime of the temporary
> context from per-tuple to per-index-scan. It is not obvious that this change
> is correct. Could you explain, wh
Hi,
I came across a strange memory problem when doing an IndexJoin using
spgist on boxes.
I also found it mentioned here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAPqRbE5vTGWCGrOc91Bmu-0o7CwsU0UCnAshOtpDR8cSpSjy0g%40mail.gmail.com#capqrbe5vtgwcgroc91bmu-0o7cwsu0ucnashotpdr8cspsj...@mail.gmail.c