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

Re: Out of memory error when doing an update with IN clause

From: Sean Shanny <shannyconsulting(at)earthlink(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Out of memory error when doing an update with IN clause
Date: 2003-12-29 21:27:14
Message-ID: 3FF09C32.4090407@earthlink.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
Tom,

I run this:

explain update f_commerce_impressions set servlet_key = 60 where 
servlet_key in (68,69,70,71,87,90,94,91,98,105,106);
ERROR:  out of memory
DETAIL:  Failed on request of size 1024.


I get this in the server log:

TopMemoryContext: 32768 total in 3 blocks; 6376 free (4 chunks); 26392 used
TopTransactionContext: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 8136 free (0 chunks); 56 used
DeferredTriggerXact: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used
MessageContext: 57344 total in 3 blocks; 28760 free (1 chunks); 28584 used
PortalMemory: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 8040 free (0 chunks); 152 used
PortalHeapMemory: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 3936 free (0 chunks); 4256 used
PortalHeapMemory: 23552 total in 5 blocks; 2888 free (0 chunks); 20664 used
ExecutorState: 24576 total in 2 blocks; 5032 free (8 chunks); 19544 used
DynaHashTable: 534773784 total in 65 blocks; 31488 free (255 chunks); 
534742296 used
ExprContext: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used
CacheMemoryContext: 516096 total in 6 blocks; 205344 free (1 chunks); 
310752 used
idx_commerce_impressions_servlet: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 
chunks); 384 used
idx_commerce_impressions_page_view: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 
chunks); 384 used
idx_commerce_impressions_date_dec_2003: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free 
(0 chunks); 384 used
idx_commerce_impressions_date_nov_2003: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free 
(0 chunks); 384 used
f_commerce_impressions_pkey: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 
chunks); 384 used
pg_index_indrelid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 
384 used
pg_attrdef_adrelid_adnum_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_amop_opc_strategy_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 chunks); 
704 used
pg_shadow_usename_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 
384 used
pg_amop_opr_opc_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 chunks); 704 used
pg_conversion_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 
384 used
pg_language_name_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 
used
pg_statistic_relid_att_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_attribute_relid_attnam_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_shadow_usesysid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 
384 used
pg_cast_source_target_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_conversion_name_nsp_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_trigger_tgrelid_tgname_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_namespace_nspname_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 
384 used
pg_conversion_default_index: 2048 total in 1 blocks; 704 free (0 
chunks); 1344 used
pg_class_relname_nsp_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 chunks); 
704 used
pg_aggregate_fnoid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 
384 used
pg_inherits_relid_seqno_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_language_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 used
pg_type_typname_nsp_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 chunks); 
704 used
pg_group_sysid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 used
pg_namespace_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 
used
pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index: 2048 total in 1 blocks; 704 free (0 
chunks); 1344 used
pg_opclass_am_name_nsp_index: 2048 total in 1 blocks; 768 free (0 
chunks); 1280 used
pg_group_name_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 used
pg_proc_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 used
pg_operator_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 used
pg_amproc_opc_procnum_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_index_indexrelid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 
384 used
pg_operator_oprname_l_r_n_index: 2048 total in 1 blocks; 704 free (0 
chunks); 1344 used
pg_opclass_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 used
pg_rewrite_rel_rulename_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_type_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 used
pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 320 free (0 
chunks); 704 used
pg_class_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free (0 chunks); 384 used
MdSmgr: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 6120 free (0 chunks); 2072 used
DynaHash: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 7064 free (0 chunks); 1128 used
DynaHashTable: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 5080 free (0 chunks); 3112 used
DynaHashTable: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 2008 free (0 chunks); 6184 used
DynaHashTable: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 3016 free (0 chunks); 5176 used
DynaHashTable: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 4040 free (0 chunks); 4152 used
DynaHashTable: 24576 total in 2 blocks; 13240 free (4 chunks); 11336 used
DynaHashTable: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used
DynaHashTable: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used
DynaHashTable: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used
DynaHashTable: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used
DynaHashTable: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used
ErrorContext: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 8176 free (0 chunks); 16 used
ERROR:  out of memory
DETAIL:  Failed on request of size 1024.


Tom Lane wrote:

>Sean Shanny <shannyconsulting(at)earthlink(dot)net> writes:
>  
>
>>As you can see I had to reduce the number of arguments in the IN clause 
>>to even get the explain.
>>    
>>
>
>You mean you get an out-of-memory error just from EXPLAIN (without
>ANALYZE)??  That makes even less sense ... the hash table we identified
>before should not be created or filled during EXPLAIN.
>
>			regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
>      joining column's datatypes do not match
>
>  
>


In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ericson SmithDate: 2003-12-29 21:28:54
Subject: Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ?
Previous:From: Guy FraserDate: 2003-12-29 21:21:27
Subject: Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group