From: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: logical decoding : exceeded maxAllocatedDescs for .spill files |
Date: | 2020-02-14 10:35:59 |
Message-ID: | CAGz5QCLGLW9FQjTyvhgey1FUPP0Z4Ki-YrwnarsHPyK4+nJy8Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 9:18 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> It seems for this we formed a cache of max_cached_tuplebufs number of
> objects and we don't need to allocate more than that number of tuples
> of size MaxHeapTupleSize because we will anyway return that memory to
> aset.c.
>
In the approach suggested by Amit (approach 1), once we allocate the
max_cached_tuplebufs number of MaxHeapTupleSize, we can use the actual
length of the tuple for allocating memory. So, if we have m
subtransactions, the memory usage at worst case will be,
(max_cached_tuplebufs * MaxHeapTupleSize) cache +
(Maximum changes in a subtransaction before spilling) * m * (Actual tuple size)
= 64 MB cache + 4095 * m * (Actual tuple size)
In the approach suggested by Andres (approach 2), we're going to
reduce the size of a cached tuple to 1024 bytes. So, if we have m
sub-transactions, the memory usage at worst case will be,
(max_cached_tuplebufs * 1024 bytes) cache + (Maximum changes in a
subtransaction before spilling) * m * 1024 bytes
= 8 MB cache + 4095 * m * 1024 (considering the size of the tuple is
less than 1024 bytes)
Once the cache is filled, for 1000 sub-transactions operating on tuple
size, say 100 bytes, approach 1 will allocate 390 MB of memory
(approx.) whereas approach 2 will allocate 4GB of memory
approximately. If there is no obvious error that I'm missing, I think
we should implement the first approach.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2020-02-14 10:39:59 | Re: assert pg_class.relnatts is consistent |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-02-14 10:05:48 | Re: Parallel copy |