From: | Toby Corkindale <toby(dot)corkindale(at)strategicdata(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bug? Query plans / EXPLAIN using gigabytes of memory |
Date: | 2012-04-26 06:14:14 |
Message-ID: | 4F98E7B6.506@strategicdata.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 26/04/12 15:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Toby Corkindale<toby(dot)corkindale(at)strategicdata(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> On 26/04/12 13:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, if you were to provide a reproducible test case, somebody might be
>>> motivated to look into it. There could be a memory leak in the planner
>>> somewhere, but without a test case it's not very practical to go look
>>> for it.
>
>> Would a Perl-based script that built up a database like that be a useful
>> test case for you?
>
> Yeah, sure, just something that somebody else can run to duplicate the
> problem.
>
>> For what it's worth, I discovered something quite interesting. The
>> memory usage only blows out when I do an update based on the results of
>> the query.
>
> Hm, is the update target an inheritance tree?
The target is the parent table of a bunch of partitions.
The actual rows being updated live in those child tables.
Toby
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-26 06:58:06 | Re: Bug? Query plans / EXPLAIN using gigabytes of memory |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-26 05:30:14 | Re: Bug? Query plans / EXPLAIN using gigabytes of memory |