Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20191110212352.5xpzddwjs6fmuv4u@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:08:58AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: >I think I see what's happening: we're running out of hash bits. > >> Buckets: 4194304 (originally 4194304) Batches: 32768 (originally 4096) Memory Usage: 344448kB > >Here it's using the lower 22 bits for the bucket number, and started >out using 12 bits for the batch (!), and increased that until it got >to 15 (!!). After using 22 bits for the bucket, there are only 10 >bits left, so all the tuples go into the lower 1024 batches. > Ouch! >I'm not sure how exactly this leads to wildly varying numbers of >repartioning cycles (the above-quoted example did it 3 times, the >version that crashed into MaxAllocSize did it ~10 times). > >Besides switching to 64 bit hashes so that we don't run out of >information (clearly a good idea), what other options do we have? (1) >We could disable repartitioning (give up on work_mem) after we've run >out of bits; this will eat more memory than it should. (2) You could >start stealing bucket bits; this will eat more CPU than it should, >because you'd effectively have fewer active buckets (tuples will >concentrated on the bits you didn't steal). Can't we simply compute two hash values, using different seeds - one for bucket and the other for batch? Of course, that'll be more expensive. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: