| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> | 
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Don't overwrite scan key in systable_beginscan() | 
| Date: | 2024-11-27 15:35:16 | 
| Message-ID: | Z0c8NIvwwFoAMbV5@pryzbyj2023 | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 04:33:25PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 26.11.24 14:56, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Since 811af9786b, the palloc'd idxkey's seem to be leaking/accumulating
> > throughout the command.
> > 
> > I noticed this on the master branch while running ANALYZE on partitioned
> > table with 600 attributes, even though only 6 were being analyzed.
> > 
> > LOG:  level: 3; BuildRelationExtStatistics: 1239963512 total in 278 blocks; 5082984 free (296 chunks); 1234880528 used
> > 
> > Several indexes are being scanned many thousands of times.
> 
> Hmm, this patch inserts one additional palloc() call per
> systable_beginscan().  So it won't have much of an impact for isolated
> calls, but for thousands of scans you get thousands of small chunks of
> memory.
> 
> Does your test case get better if you insert corresponding pfree() calls?
Yes -- I'd already checked.
-- 
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Malladi, Rama | 2024-11-27 15:43:27 | [PATCH] SVE popcount support | 
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-11-27 15:35:09 | Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block |