From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Peter Galbavy <peter(dot)galbavy(at)knowtion(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2003-04-10 20:28:46 |
Message-ID: | 3E95D3FE.5DE02EA6@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
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.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# 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 #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Barry Lind | 2003-04-10 21:19:22 | Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol |
Previous Message | Ron Peacetree | 2003-04-10 18:20:13 | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2003-04-10 20:41:48 | Re: Memory leak!! |
Previous Message | William Suetholz | 2003-04-10 19:20:39 | ECPG for ODBC? |