On Jan 25, 2008 5:50 AM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. I think what that really means is you haven't got to the part of
the query where the leak is :-(. In my attempt to reproduce this
I found that 8.3 has introduced a memory leak into the RI trigger
support, such that even if an
Stephen Denne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I altered the update statement slightly, and reran the query.
The altered query has been running over 3 hours now,
without using lots of memory (38M private bytes).
2046 temp files were created (2.54GB worth),
which have recently changed from slowly
Stephen Denne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So dropping the fk constraint and index results in successful query execution
with constant memory usage. Does this confirm that the memory leak you found
is the one I was suffering from?
Well, it confirms that you were suffering from that memory leak.
Tom Lane wrote:
Stephen Denne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So dropping the fk constraint and index results in
successful query execution with constant memory usage. Does
this confirm that the memory leak you found is the one I was
suffering from?
Well, it confirms that you were suffering
.
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 25/01/2008 5:50 p.m.
To: Stephen Denne
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] 8.3rc1 Out of memory when performing update
Stephen Denne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I altered the update statement slightly
Roberts, Jon wrote:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] 8.3rc1 Out of memory when performing update
A simple update query, over roughly 17 million rows, populating a
newly added column in a table, resulted in an out of memory error
when the process memory usage reached 2GB. Could this be due to a
poor
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] 8.3rc1 Out of memory when performing update
A simple update query, over roughly 17 million rows, populating a
newly added column in a table, resulted in an out of memory error
when the process memory usage reached 2GB. Could this be due to a
poor choice
A simple update query, over roughly 17 million rows, populating a
newly added column in a table, resulted in an out of memory error
when the process memory usage reached 2GB. Could this be due to a
poor choice of some configuration parameter, or is there a limit on
how many rows I can
A simple update query, over roughly 17 million rows, populating a newly added
column in a table, resulted in an out of memory error when the process memory
usage reached 2GB. Could this be due to a poor choice of some configuration
parameter, or is there a limit on how many rows I can update in
Em Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:46:20 +1300
Stephen Denne [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
A simple update query, over roughly 17 million rows, populating a
newly added column in a table, resulted in an out of memory error
when the process memory usage reached 2GB. Could this be due to a
poor choice of
Stephen Denne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A simple update query, over roughly 17 million rows, populating a newly added
column in a table, resulted in an out of memory error when the process memory
usage reached 2GB. Could this be due to a poor choice of some configuration
parameter, or is
Stephen Denne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A simple update query, over roughly 17 million rows,
populating a newly added column in a table, resulted in an
out of memory error when the process memory usage reached
2GB. Could this be due to a poor choice of some configuration
parameter,
Stephen Denne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I altered the update statement slightly, and reran the query.
The altered query has been running over 3 hours now,
without using lots of memory (38M private bytes).
2046 temp files were created (2.54GB worth),
which have recently changed from slowly
13 matches
Mail list logo
