| From: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OOM in hash join |
| Date: | 2023-04-14 11:21:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAEze2Wi1F3GuPapyXe54k29JqzbzQ5Mc3mng=nFSOYyonQ+NTw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 at 12:59, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru> wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> Too small value of work_mem cause memory overflow in parallel hash join
> because of too much number batches.
> There is the plan:
[...]
> There is still some gap between size reported by memory context sump and
> actual size of backend.
> But is seems to be obvious, that trying to fit in work_mem
> sharedtuplestore creates so much batches, that them consume much more
> memory than work_mem.
The same issue [0] was reported a few weeks ago, with the same
diagnosis here [1]. I think it's being worked on over there.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20230228190643.1e368315%40karst
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/3013398b-316c-638f-2a73-3783e8e2ef02%40enterprisedb.com#ceb9e14383122ade8b949b7479c6f7e2
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-04-14 11:27:55 | Re: OOM in hash join |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2023-04-14 10:59:27 | OOM in hash join |