On 04/06/15 12:58, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 06/03/2015 03:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
What is more important, though, is the amount of memory. OP reported the
query writes ~95GB of tem
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/03/2015 03:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>>> What is more important, though, is the amount of memory. OP reported the
>>> query writes ~95GB of temp files (and dies because
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 06/03/2015 03:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> What is more important, though, is the amount of memory. OP reported the
>> query writes ~95GB of temp files (and dies because of full disk, so
>> there may be more). The on-disk format is u
On 06/04/15 01:54, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
On 2015-06-03 16:29, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 06/03/2015 03:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
What is more important, though, is the amount of memory. OP reported the
query writes ~95GB of temp files (and dies because of full disk, so
there may be more). Th
On 2015-06-03 16:29, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 06/03/2015 03:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> What is more important, though, is the amount of memory. OP reported the
>> query writes ~95GB of temp files (and dies because of full disk, so
>> there may be more). The on-disk format is usually mor
On 06/03/2015 03:16 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
What is more important, though, is the amount of memory. OP reported the
query writes ~95GB of temp files (and dies because of full disk, so
there may be more). The on-disk format is usually more compact than the
in-memory representation - for example
On 06/03/15 23:18, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
On 06/03/15 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Tomas Vondra
Well, except that 15GB of that is shared_buffers, and I wouldn't call that
'free'. Also, I don't see page cache
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/03/15 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Tomas Vondra
I don't see why you think you have less than 3GB used. The output
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
>
> On 06/03/15 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Tomas Vondra
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see why you think you have less than 3GB used. The output you
>>> posted
>>> clearly shows there's only ~300MB memory free -
On 06/03/15 17:09, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Tomas Vondra
I don't see why you think you have less than 3GB used. The output you posted
clearly shows there's only ~300MB memory free - there's 15GB shared buffers
and ~45GB of page cache (file system cache).
Because
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> On 06/03/15 16:06, ben.play wrote:
>>
>> The query is (unfortunately) generated by Doctrine 2 (Symfony 2).
>> We can’t change the query easily.
>
>
> Well, then you'll probably have to buy more RAM, apparently.
There's an easy way to add disk
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
> On 06/03/15 16:06, ben.play wrote:
>>
>> The query is (unfortunately) generated by Doctrine 2 (Symfony 2).
>> We can’t change the query easily.
>
>
> Well, then you'll probably have to buy more RAM, apparently.
>
>> This is my config :
>>
>>
On 06/03/15 16:06, ben.play wrote:
The query is (unfortunately) generated by Doctrine 2 (Symfony 2).
We can’t change the query easily.
Well, then you'll probably have to buy more RAM, apparently.
This is my config :
max_connections = 80
shared_buffers = 15GB
work_mem = 384MB
maintenance_wor
The query is (unfortunately) generated by Doctrine 2 (Symfony 2).
We can’t change the query easily.
This is my config :
max_connections = 80
shared_buffers = 15GB
work_mem = 384MB
maintenance_work_mem = 1GB
#temp_buffers = 8MB
#temp_file_limit = -1
effective_cache_size = 44GB
If I put a temp_
On 06/03/15 15:27, chiru r wrote:
Hi Benjamin,
It looks you are facing disk space issue for queries.
In order to avid the disk space issue you can do the following.
1) Increase the work_mem parameter session level before executing the
queries.
2) If you observe diskspace issue particular user
Hi Benjamin,
It looks you are facing disk space issue for queries.
In order to avid the disk space issue you can do the following.
1) Increase the work_mem parameter session level before executing the
queries.
2) If you observe diskspace issue particular user queries,increase the
work_mem paramete
SQLSTATE[53100]: Disk full: 7 ERROR: could not write block 1099247 of
temporary file
Its looks like there is no room to write temporary file, try with limiting
temporary file size by setting temp_file_limit GUC.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/How-to-reduce-writ
You should repost this directly and not through Nabble. It has wrapped
your code in raw tags which the PostgreSQL mailing list software strips.
On Wednesday, June 3, 2015, ben.play wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have a big database (more than 300 Gb) and we run a lot of queries each
> minute.
>
> Howe
Hi all,
We have a big database (more than 300 Gb) and we run a lot of queries each
minute.
However, once an hour, the (very complex) query writes A LOT on the disk
(more than 95 Gb !!!)
We have 64 Gb of RAM and this is our config :
And my error on the query is :
Do you know how to solve th
19 matches
Mail list logo
