Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Solving hash table overrun problems

From: Aaron Birkland <birkie(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Solving hash table overrun problems
Date: 2005-03-04 06:05:37
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> We saw a case recently where a hash join was using much more memory than
> it was supposed to, causing failure when the server ran out of memory.

Yes.  I had the same problem a few month ago,

It turned out that the cost estimates were so way off no matter what
tunables were modified, so I never was ever able to execute the query
fully.  I analyzed the code and devised a solution that was similar
what you proposed, though I didn't consider HashAggregates
at the time.  Unfortunately, I lost all work in a hard drive failure
and was never able to get back to working on it, so I can't really
refer to my old notes.  For what it's worth, your solution looks very
reasonable to me.

This also brings up a line of thought I had a while ago on a related
topic.  Something like a "HashDistinct" might be useful, if it had no
startup cost.  It would basically be a plan node in the executor that
would dynamically build a hashtable so that it can pull rows from its
child node (discarding if they appear in the hashtable) until it can
pass on a novel row.   I have some reservations about it, though.  At
in queries with minimal startup cost from the get-go, it would seem to
be a tradeoff favoring latency over throughput (assuming the
HashDistinct would be a slower operation overall than separate
aggregation and distinct operations).   Then we have the issue of
really big hash tables...  I was hoping to get some time in the
upcoming months to hash out these issues to see if it's worth it, and
if it would be generally useful at all.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pailloncy Jean-GerardDate: 2005-03-04 08:38:29
Subject: Re: bitmap AM design
Previous:From: Vikram KalsiDate: 2005-03-04 06:01:59
Subject: postgreSQL-8.0.1 configure --enable-thread-safety with icc-8.1 on RHEL-AS3 Itanium-2 gives error

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group