| From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Maurice Gittens <mgittens(at)gits(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it>, Pgsql Development <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Gould <dg(at)illustra(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Everything leaks; How it mm suppose to work? |
| Date: | 1998-04-09 13:00:24 |
| Message-ID: | 352CC668.134F4FE7@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >Does it make sense to have a 'row' context which is released just
> >before starting with a new tuple ? The total number or free is the
> >same but they are distributed over the query and unused memory should
> >not accumulate.
> >I have seen backends growing to 40-60MB with queries which scan a
> >very large number of rows.
> I think this would be appropiate.
It seems that the CPU overhead on all queries would increase trying to
deallocate/reuse memory during the query. There are lots of places in
the backend where memory is palloc'd and then left lying around after
use; I had assumed it was sort-of-intentional to avoid having extra
cleanup overhead during a query.
- Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-04-09 13:25:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Data types |
| Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 1998-04-09 12:04:30 | NetBSD configuration |