Re: Out of swap space & memory

What does EXPLAIN <your query here> say?

I had an issue[1] with 7.4.1 where it was using "HashAggregate" because it
thought everything could fit in memory, but it couldn't.

So I downgraded to 7.3.4 and it worked.

In my case Tom Lane suggested a workaround for the 7.4.1 planner
erroneously using HashAgregate:

set enable_hashagg = off

But without an EXPLAIN it's harder for people here to help you.

Wonder if 7.4.x could throw a warning and switch to a less memory intensive
query plan if it discovers it is running out of mem.

Hope this helps,
Link.

[1] see thread: "postmaster growing to consume all memory"

At 07:32 PM 8/6/2004 -0700, Kevin Bartz wrote:

>Mike, thanks so much for your reply. I'm sorry for not showing you my SQL. I
>didn't show it because I couldn't manage to boil it down to something
>reproducible that everyone could try. But here's what it was:
>
>drop table octanenights;
>CREATE TABLE octanenights (member_id varchar(100), campaign_id varchar(100),
>catalog_type varchar(100), pushed int, delivered int, clicks int, opened
>int, month varchar(100), type1 int, type2 int, type3 int, type4 int, type5
>int);
>
>copy octanenights from
>'/home/kevin/octanenights/proc/uberfile/uberfile1.txt' null as '';
>copy octanenights from
>'/home/kevin/octanenights/proc/uberfile/uberfile2.txt' null as '';
>copy octanenights from
>'/home/kevin/octanenights/proc/uberfile/uberfile3.txt' null as '';
>
>select * from octanenights limit 10;
>alter table octanenights rename to octanenights_raw;
>
>-- de-dup the table
>select member_id, campaign_id, catalog_type, pushed, delivered, clicks,
>opened, month, type1, type2, type3, type4, type5
>into octanenights
>from octanenights_raw
>group by member_id, campaign_id, catalog_type, pushed, delivered, clicks,
>          opened, month, type1, type2, type3, type4, type5;
>
>Let me tell you a little about octanenights. It's a file of about 36,000,000
>rows, each describing an e-mail sent. Unfortunately, there are duplicate
>records scattered throughout the table, which I do not care about. One might
>suggest that I could've used uniq from the command line for this, but the
>data were not sorted originally and the duplicate records may be scattered
>anywhere in the table. The objective in the final line is to de-dup the
>table and place it into octanenights, leaving the original in
>octanenights_raw in case I ever need to refer back to it.
>
>MS SQL Server, with as much RAM and less clock speed, de-dups the table in
>about six minutes. The de-duped version has about 26,000,000 rows. The final
>line is where Postgres gobbles up all my swap and RAM and then conks out
>completely.
>
>Am I doing something wrong? Maybe there was a better way to approach this
>problem? I'd be open to suggestions of any kind, since I'm still very, very
>new to the world of optimizing Postgres.
>
>Kevin