| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Oleksii Kliukin <alexk(at)hintbits(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Limiting memory allocation |
| Date: | 2022-05-25 01:20:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1772786.1653441643@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 07:40:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (1) There are not a predetermined number of allocations. For example,
>> if we do a given join as nestloop+inner index scan, that doesn't require
>> any large amount of memory; but if we do it as merge or hash join then
>> it will consume memory.
> Uh, we know from the plan whether we are doing a nestloop+inner or merge
> or hash join, right? I was suggesting we look at the plan before
> execution and set the proper percentage of work_mem for each node.
Then you just rendered all the planner's estimates fantasies.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-05-25 01:20:55 | Re: Assert name/short_desc to prevent SHOW ALL segfault |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-05-25 01:19:40 | Re: allow building trusted languages without the untrusted versions |