Re: [PERFORM] psql large RSS (1.6GB)
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Dustin Sallings wrote: If the solution is to just write a little client that uses perl DBI to fetch rows one at a time and write them out, that's doable, but it would be nice if psql could be made to just work without the monster RSS. It wouldn't make a difference unless that driver implements the underlying protocol on its own. Even though we can tell people to make use of cursors, it seems that memory usage for large result sets should be addressed. A quick search of the archives does not reveal any discussion about having libpq spill to disk if a result set reaches some threshold. Has this been canvassed in the past? Thanks, Gavin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [PERFORM] psql large RSS (1.6GB)
Gavin Sherry wrote: On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Dustin Sallings wrote: If the solution is to just write a little client that uses perl DBI to fetch rows one at a time and write them out, that's doable, but it would be nice if psql could be made to just work without the monster RSS. It wouldn't make a difference unless that driver implements the underlying protocol on its own. Even though we can tell people to make use of cursors, it seems that memory usage for large result sets should be addressed. A quick search of the archives does not reveal any discussion about having libpq spill to disk if a result set reaches some threshold. Has this been canvassed in the past? No, I don't remember hearing this discussed and I don't think most people would want libpq spilling to disk by default. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [PERFORM] psql large RSS (1.6GB)
Tom, Far more useful would be some sort of streaming API to let the application process the rows as they arrive, or at least fetch the rows in small batches (the V3 protocol supports the latter even without any explicit use of a cursor). I'm not sure if this can be bolted onto the existing libpq framework reasonably, but that's the direction I'd prefer to go in. I think that TelegraphCQ incorporates this. However, I'm not sure whether it's a portable component; it may be too tied in to their streaming query engine. They have talked about porting their background query patch for PSQL, though ... -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [PERFORM] psql large RSS (1.6GB)
On Oct 27, 2004, at 0:57, TTK Ciar wrote: At a guess, it looks like the data set is being buffered in its entirety by psql, before any data is written to the output file, which is surprising. I would have expected it to grab data as it appeared on the socket from postmaster and write it to disk. Is there something we can do to stop psql from buffering results? Does anyone know what's going on here? Yes, the result set is sent back to the client before it can be used. An easy workaround when dealing with this much data is to use a cursor. Something like this: db# start transaction; START TRANSACTION db# declare logcur cursor for select * from some_table; DECLARE CURSOR db# fetch 5 in logcur; [...] (5 rows) This will do approximately what you expected the select to do in the first, place, but the fetch will decide how many rows to buffer into the client at a time. If the solution is to just write a little client that uses perl DBI to fetch rows one at a time and write them out, that's doable, but it would be nice if psql could be made to just work without the monster RSS. It wouldn't make a difference unless that driver implements the underlying protocol on its own. -- SPY My girlfriend asked me which one I like better. pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE L___ I hope the answer won't upset her. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PERFORM] psql large RSS (1.6GB)
, 27.10.2004, 09:57, TTK Ciar : brad=# explain analyse select ServerDisks.servername,ServerDisks.diskserial,ServerDisks.diskmountpoint,DiskFiles.name,DiskFiles.md5 from DiskFiles,ServerDisks where DiskFiles.diskserial=ServerDisks.diskserial; QUERY PLAN -- Hash Join (cost=22.50..65.00 rows=1000 width=274) (actual time=118.584..124653.729 rows=10133349 loops=1) Hash Cond: ((outer.diskserial)::text = (inner.diskserial)::text) - Seq Scan on diskfiles (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=198) (actual time=7.201..31336.063 rows=10133349 loops=1) - Hash (cost=20.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=158) (actual time=90.821..90.821 rows=0 loops=1) - Seq Scan on serverdisks (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=158) (actual time=9.985..87.364 rows=2280 loops=1) Total runtime: 130944.586 ms You should run ANALYZE on your database once in a while. -- Markus Bertheau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
[PERFORM] psql large RSS (1.6GB)
Hello! My name is TTK, and I'm a software engineer at the Internet Archive's Data Repository department. We have recently started using postgresql for a couple of projects (we have historically been a MySQL outfit), and today my co-worker noticed psql eating memory like mad when invoked with a simple select statement incorporating a join of two tables. The platform is a heavily modified RedHat 7.3 Linux. We are using version 7.4.5 of postgresql. The invocation was via sh script: #!/bin/bash outfile=$1 if [ -z $outfile ]; then outfile=/0/brad/all_arcs.txt fi /usr/lib/postgresql/bin/psql -c 'select ServerDisks.servername,ServerDisks.diskserial,ServerDisks.diskmountpoint,DiskFiles.name,DiskFiles.md5 from DiskFiles,ServerDisks where DiskFiles.diskserial=ServerDisks.diskserial;' -F ' ' -A -t -o $outfile .. and the tables in question are somewhat large (hundreds of GB's of data), though we didn't expect that to be an issue as far as the psql process was concerned. We monitored server load via 'top -i -d 0.5' and watched the output file for data. Over the course of about 200 seconds, psql's RSS climbed to about 1.6 GB, and stayed there, while no data was written to the output file. Eventually 10133194 lines were written to the output file, all at once, about 1.2GB's worth of data. I re-ran the select query using psql in interactive mode, and saw the same results. I re-ran it again, using explain analyse, and this time psql's RSS did *not* increase significantly. The result is here, if it helps: brad=# explain analyse select ServerDisks.servername,ServerDisks.diskserial,ServerDisks.diskmountpoint,DiskFiles.name,DiskFiles.md5 from DiskFiles,ServerDisks where DiskFiles.diskserial=ServerDisks.diskserial; QUERY PLAN -- Hash Join (cost=22.50..65.00 rows=1000 width=274) (actual time=118.584..124653.729 rows=10133349 loops=1) Hash Cond: ((outer.diskserial)::text = (inner.diskserial)::text) - Seq Scan on diskfiles (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=198) (actual time=7.201..31336.063 rows=10133349 loops=1) - Hash (cost=20.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=158) (actual time=90.821..90.821 rows=0 loops=1) - Seq Scan on serverdisks (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=158) (actual time=9.985..87.364 rows=2280 loops=1) Total runtime: 130944.586 ms At a guess, it looks like the data set is being buffered in its entirety by psql, before any data is written to the output file, which is surprising. I would have expected it to grab data as it appeared on the socket from postmaster and write it to disk. Is there something we can do to stop psql from buffering results? Does anyone know what's going on here? If the solution is to just write a little client that uses perl DBI to fetch rows one at a time and write them out, that's doable, but it would be nice if psql could be made to just work without the monster RSS. I'd appreciate any feedback. If you need any additional info, please let me know and I will provide it. -- TTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
