Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg
Date: 2015-01-16 12:26:40
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQAj3paSjZO00L4wwWx+rB37nBGhXuQQUoP46-tDck0RA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> which is IMHO obviously wrong, because that accounts only for the
> hashtable itself.
> In those cases the patch actually does no memory accounting and as
> hashcontext has no child contexts, there's no accounting overhead.
> [blah]

> So the performance drops 2x. With more groups, the performance impact is
> even worse.
Hmm. It seems that this patch is not there yet, so marking it as
returned with feedback, especially knowing that the patch is incorrect
by using hascontext as mentioned by Tomas.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-01-16 12:43:43 Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs
Previous Message Manuel Kniep 2015-01-16 12:21:28 Re: segmentation fault in execTuples.c#ExecStoreVirtualTuple