Re: Limiting memory allocation

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Oleksii Kliukin <alexk(at)hintbits(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Limiting memory allocation
Date: 2022-05-25 01:35:19
Message-ID: Yo2H14iyZ7YmJHra@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 09:20:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 07:40:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (1) There are not a predetermined number of allocations. For example,
> >> if we do a given join as nestloop+inner index scan, that doesn't require
> >> any large amount of memory; but if we do it as merge or hash join then
> >> it will consume memory.
>
> > Uh, we know from the plan whether we are doing a nestloop+inner or merge
> > or hash join, right? I was suggesting we look at the plan before
> > execution and set the proper percentage of work_mem for each node.
>
> Then you just rendered all the planner's estimates fantasies.

That's what I was asking --- if the planner's estimates are based on the
size of work_mem --- I thought you said it is not.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-05-25 01:35:57 Re: Improve TAP tests of pg_upgrade for cross-version tests
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2022-05-25 01:34:33 Re: allow building trusted languages without the untrusted versions