| From: | Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Relyea, Mike" <Mike(dot)Relyea(at)xerox(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Todd A(dot) Cook" <tcook(at)blackducksoftware(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Out of memory error in 8.1.0 Win32 |
| Date: | 2006-06-23 05:25:18 |
| Message-ID: | DBB794C1-3123-42E7-9956-D41355D2BF81@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 22, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Relyea, Mike wrote:
> Thanks Jim and Tom. At least now I've got a direction to head in. I
> think for now I'll probably reduce work_mem as a stop-gap measure
> to get
> the query running again. This will buy me some time to redesign it.
> I'll probably separate out each sub query and store the results in a
> table (would a temp table be a good solution here?) before I pull
> it all
> together with the final query.
Yes, it would. It's also possible that you could structure the query
better, to reduce the amount of concurrent sorting/hashing going on.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-06-23 05:29:23 | Re: Idea for vacuuming |
| Previous Message | Kostas Maistrelis | 2006-06-23 04:44:34 | Re: sql question; checks if data already exists before |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-06-23 05:44:13 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2006-06-23 04:00:10 | Full Disjunction |