From: | Sean Shanny <shannyconsulting(at)earthlink(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Getting an out of memory failure.... (long email) |
Date: | 2004-09-28 07:28:14 |
Message-ID: | BD7E8ACE.19020%shannyconsulting@earthlink.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom,
The Analyze did in fact fix the issue. Thanks.
--sean
On 9/27/04 11:54 PM, "Sean Shanny" <shannyconsulting(at)earthlink(dot)net> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> We have been running pg_autovacuum on this entire DB so I did not even
> consider that. I am running an analyze verbose now.
>
> We should see about 82mm rows that will match the Filter: ((date_key >= 610)
> AND (date_key <= 631))
>
> I'll update in an hour or so.
>
> --sean
>
>
> On 9/27/04 11:49 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> Sean Shanny <shannyconsulting(at)earthlink(dot)net> writes:
>>> -> Seq Scan on f_pageviews t1 (cost=0.00..11762857.88
>>> rows=1 width=8)
>>> Filter: ((date_key >= 610) AND (date_key <= 631))
>>
>> How many rows are actually going to match that filter condition? (The
>> symptoms seem to indicate that the answer is "a whole lot", not "1".)
>>
>> I speculate that you're overdue for an ANALYZE on this table, and that
>> the planner thinks this scan is going to yield no rows because the
>> stats it has say there are no rows with date_key >= 610.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2004-09-28 08:28:39 | Re: core dump on select |
Previous Message | Chris Mair | 2004-09-28 06:20:03 | Re: data modeler |