| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andreas Seltenreich <andreas(dot)seltenreich(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Excessive memory usage in multi-statement queries w/ partitioning |
| Date: | 2019-05-24 13:33:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f-StHT8ZKyC8rsK=nJim13qDWDiNO8NMirTBo_jk=z5Aw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:18, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> I admittedly haven't followed this thread too closely, but if having 100
> partitions causes out of memory on pg11, that sounds like a massive
> regression to me.
For it to have regressed it would have had to once have been better,
but where was that mentioned? The only thing I saw was
non-partitioned tables compared to partitioned tables, but you can't
really say it's a regression if you're comparing apples to oranges.
I think the only regression here is in the documents from bebc46931a1
having removed the warning about too many partitions in a partitioned
table at the end of ddl.sgml. As Amit mentions, we'd like to put
something back about that.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-24 13:40:28 | Re: Aggregate error message |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2019-05-24 13:13:42 | Re: initdb recommendations |