Re: [INTERFACES] Front end memory consumption in SELECT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: dougt(at)mugc(dot)cc(dot)monash(dot)edu(dot)au
Cc: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Front end memory consumption in SELECT
Date: 1999-11-20 06:26:35
Message-ID: 6505.943079195@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

Douglas Thomson <dougt(at)mugc(dot)cc(dot)monash(dot)edu(dot)au> writes:
> However, judging by the memory consumption of my front-end process,
> it would seem that the SELECT is loading the entire table into memory
> before I even fetch the first row! Can anyone confirm that this is in
> fact what goes on?

libpq handles SELECTs that way. You should consider DECLARE CURSOR
and FETCH if you need to retrieve a large query result in chunks.

It was probably bad design for libpq to offer random access to query
results --- I'm sure there are few applications that really care,
and the memory-consumption problem is a very real one for many apps.
But I see no way to fix it without fundamental changes to libpq's API,
and it's not clear it's worth that kind of pain. Maybe there will
be a deliberately-incompatible libpq Mark II someday ... or maybe we'll
switch to a whole new client interface like CORBA.

> If so, is there any way to avoid it? The obvious solution would seem
> to be to use LIMIT and OFFSET to get just a few thousand rows at a
> time, but will that suffer from a time overhead while the backend
> skips over millions of rows to get to the ones it needs??

Yes. See the CURSOR stuff instead.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Mount 1999-11-20 11:31:34 Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC compliancy question
Previous Message Sergio A. Kessler 1999-11-20 03:18:58 Re: [INTERFACES] pg_pwd