From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Casey Duncan <casey(at)pandora(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #2428: ERROR: out of memory, running INSERT SELECT statement |
Date: | 2006-05-12 00:14:54 |
Message-ID: | 18814.1147392894@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Casey Duncan <casey(at)pandora(dot)com> writes:
> On May 11, 2006, at 4:42 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> As your database is defined, this SQL statement will return
>> approximately 4 trillion rows, by my calculation. As you say, it
>> returns no rows at all when the database is empty.
> *slaps forehead* I totally missed the "!=" in the where clause, Doh!
> Thanks for hitting me with a clue-stick.
I'm still wondering why you got "out of memory", though. I'd have
expected that to grind for a really long time, gradually filling your
disk, until you got an out-of-disk-space kind of error; if you didn't
notice and stop it first. There aren't (supposed to be) any long-term
memory leaks in query processing, other than than the known issue of
pending trigger events, which you say you haven't got on this table.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-12 07:04:20 | Re: BUG #2428: ERROR: out of memory, running INSERT SELECT |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-11 19:47:25 | Re: possible bug in SELECT with UNION |