| From: | Torsten Förtsch <torsten(dot)foertsch(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 15:20:26 |
| Message-ID: | 531F29BA.9050806@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/03/14 16:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ 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.
Thanks, that makes sense. BTW, I solved my problem w/o that sort. I was
just curious what happened here.
Torsten
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Welton | 2014-03-11 15:25:47 | named queries and the wire protocol |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-11 15:03:42 | Re: How to make PG use work_mem? |