| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Schuchardt <daniel_schuchardt(at)web(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: beta1 & beta2 & Windows & heavy load |
| Date: | 2004-09-12 07:15:08 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0409121713120.2784@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, Daniel Schuchardt wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> is it is known that postgres 8.0 (beta1 and beta2 both same behavoir)
> will eat tons of memory on Windows under heavy load?
I do not believe that this is known.
>
> Scenario:
>
> I have a big delete with about 56000 rows. (DELETE FROM mytable;)
> There are triggers (after delete) updating 2 or 3 other tables. (there
> are triggers on this tables too).
What language are the triggers written in? Are they just constraints?
>
> first everything seems ok but after a short tine postgres starts eating
> memory. On my mashine one postgres.exe sometimes eates 300MB or more.
>
> prob one : everything becomes slow because windows is swapping...
> main problem : if there is to less virutal memory postgres will abort
> because of to less memory. For a 56000 row delete you need > 500MB of
> virtual ram or postgres aborts.
>
> I noticed the same behavoir when do lets say 75000 rows in a table
> (triggers updating other tables also).
>
> In both situations without transactions.
>
> Is this is a bug?
>
Seems that way. Please provide a reproducible test so that others can
recreate.
Thanks,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-09-12 10:52:13 | Re: pgxs default installation + various fixes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-12 06:06:17 | Re: beta1 & beta2 & Windows & heavy load |