From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Shianmiin <Shianmiin(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL backend process high memory usage issue |
Date: | 2011-04-13 13:42:00 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTin8dYx+p9AT3TmXvOKto=2HDuKZMQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think you may have uncovered a leak (I stand corrected).
>
>> The number of schemas in your test is irrelevant -- the leak is
>> happening in proportion to the number of views (set via \setrandom
>> tidx 1 10). At 1 I don't think it exists at all -- at 100 memory use
>> grows very fast.
>
> I don't think it's a leak, exactly: it's just that the "relcache" entry
> for each one of these views occupies about 100K. A backend that touches
> N of the views is going to need about N*100K in relcache space. I can't
> get terribly excited about that. Trying to reduce the size of the
> relcache would be a net loss for most usage patterns (ie, we'd end up
> increasing the amount of re-fetching from the system catalogs that
> backends would have to do). And I don't think that this test case has
> much of anything to do with sane application design, anyway. Do you
> really need that many complex views? Do you really need to have most
> sessions touching all of them?
Ya, my mistake -- it *felt* like a leak when of course it was not.
100k does seem like an awful lot though -- perhaps this could be
organized better? -- but that's not really the point. I've coded a
lot of multi schema designs and they tend to either go the one
session/schema route or the connection pooling route. Either way,
cache memory usage tends to work itself out pretty well (it's never
been a problem for me before at least). I can't recall anyone ever
even complaining about it in a non synthetic test.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tim Wallace | 2011-04-13 14:26:21 | Make fails if env var U set |
Previous Message | Vlad Arkhipov | 2011-04-13 13:07:29 | Re: BUG #5976: Corrupted pages on the production database |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rafael Martinez | 2011-04-13 13:44:05 | Re: Weird WAL problem - 9.0.3 |
Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2011-04-13 13:28:34 | Re: Weird WAL problem - 9.0.3 |