| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andreas Seltenreich <andreas(dot)seltenreich(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Excessive memory usage in multi-statement queries w/ partitioning |
| Date: | 2019-05-24 16:54:46 |
| Message-ID: | d4b9b8bc-9cd9-3450-73a9-5241cb4c75a6@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/24/19 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> On 5/24/19 9:33 AM, David Rowley wrote:
>>> For it to have regressed it would have had to once have been better,
>>> but where was that mentioned? The only thing I saw was
>>> non-partitioned tables compared to partitioned tables, but you can't
>>> really say it's a regression if you're comparing apples to oranges.
>
>> I have very successfully used multiple hundreds and even low thousands
>> of partitions without running out of memory under the older inheritance
>> based "partitioning", and declarative partitioning is supposed to be
>> (and we have advertised it to be) better, not worse, isn't it?
>
> Have you done the exact thing described in the test case? I think
> that's going to be quite unpleasantly memory-intensive in any version.
Ok, fair point. Will test and report back.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-24 17:09:21 | Re: Read-only access to temp tables for 2PC transactions |
| Previous Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2019-05-24 16:40:46 | Re: Inconsistency between table am callback and table function names |