| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Torsten Förtsch <torsten(dot)foertsch(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to make PG use work_mem? |
| Date: | 2014-03-11 15:03:42 |
| Message-ID: | 12942.1394550222@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Torsten_F=F6rtsch?= <torsten(dot)foertsch(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 11/03/14 14:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps you fat-fingered the SET somehow?
> I just repeated it:
[ thinks for awhile... ] Oh, I know what's happening: your sort is so
large that it's being constrained by the MaxAllocSize limit on the tuple
pointer array. This has been fixed in HEAD, but it's not yet in any
shipping release. According to the log entry for commit
263865a48973767ce8ed7b7788059a38a24a9f37, the previous limit on the number
of tuples that could be sorted in memory was INT_MAX/48 or about 44
million; I've not done the arithmetic to check that, but it seems about
right seeing that you're having trouble with 75 million.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Torsten Förtsch | 2014-03-11 15:20:26 | Re: How to make PG use work_mem? |
| Previous Message | Torsten Förtsch | 2014-03-11 14:16:20 | Re: How to make PG use work_mem? |