Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200726183406.qlpunydmex4rxspl@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 05:13:00PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 5:05 PM Tomas Vondra ><tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure what you mean by "reported memory usage doesn't reflect the >> space used for transition state"? Surely it does include that, we've >> built the memory accounting stuff pretty much exactly to do that. >> >> I think it's pretty clear what's happening - in the sorted case there's >> only a single group getting new values at any moment, so when we decide >> to spill we'll only add rows to that group and everything else will be >> spilled to disk. > >Right. > >> In the unsorted case however we manage to initialize all groups in the >> hash table, but at that point the groups are tiny an fit into work_mem. >> As we process more and more data the groups grow, but we can't evict >> them - at the moment we don't have that capability. So we end up >> processing everything in memory, but significantly exceeding work_mem. > >work_mem was set to 200MB, which is more than the reported "Peak >Memory Usage: 1605334kB". So either the random case significantly That's 1.6GB, if I read it right. Which is more than 200MB ;-) >exceeds work_mem and the "Peak Memory Usage" accounting is wrong >(because it doesn't report this excess), or the random case really >doesn't exceed work_mem but has a surprising advantage over the sorted >case. > >-- >Peter Geoghegan -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: