Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> > Tom Lane kirjutas N, 10.04.2003 kell 16:57:
> >> See my response to ljb --- I think that in practice people assemble each
> >> message before sending anyway.
> > I just tested it by running "select *" on 68M records (6.5 GB data)
> > table and you seem to be wrong - while psql shows nothing, its size
> > starts rapidly growing (I ^C it at ~500M) , while backend stays at
> > stable 32M, which indicates that postgres starts to push data out as
> > fast as it can get it.
> Sure. "Message" here is at the granularity of one data row, not an
> entire query result.
Could even be smaller since TOASTed items don't get loaded at the row
level but rather one after another. So a 68M row consisting of 4 17M
fields doesn't require 68M of memory to be sent to the client.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Barry Lind||Date: 2003-04-10 21:19:22|
|Subject: Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol|
|Previous:||From: Ron Peacetree||Date: 2003-04-10 18:20:13|
|Subject: Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?|
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Ian Barwick||Date: 2003-04-10 20:41:48|
|Subject: Re: Memory leak!!|
|Previous:||From: William Suetholz||Date: 2003-04-10 19:20:39|
|Subject: ECPG for ODBC?|