Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Eric Ridge <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com>, Pgsql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?
Date: 2004-04-07 16:57:03
Message-ID: 17386.1081357023@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

<wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com> writes:
> On 4/6/04 11:09 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What "out of memory thing"? The tuplestore code is perfectly capable of
>> spilling to disk --- in fact the usual performance gripe against it has
>> to do with spilling too soon, because sort_mem is set too small.

> I tried doing a mass update of all rows with a single SQL statement in psql
> and after it ran for many hours, I got 'out of memory'.

It's unlikely that that had anything to do with tuplestores. My guess
is that you had some AFTER triggers on the updated table (eg, for
foreign key checks) and that what we ran out of memory for was the list
of deferred trigger events. Last I checked, there was still not
provision to spill that to disk when it gets big :-(

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-04-07 17:24:22 Re: timestamp precision with or without timezones
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-04-07 16:34:01 Re: More aggregate functions?