Re: Out of swap space & memory

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Bartz" <kbartz(at)loyaltymatrix(dot)com>
Cc: "'Lincoln Yeoh'" <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, "'Manfred Koizar'" <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Out of swap space & memory
Date: 2004-08-09 20:50:42
Message-ID: 19826.1092084642@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Kevin Bartz" <kbartz(at)loyaltymatrix(dot)com> writes:
> Hi Lincoln! Thanks for your reply. On the problematic SELECT INTO, EXPLAIN
> says:

> test=#
> QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> HashAggregate (cost=42.50..42.50 rows=1000 width=356)
> -> Seq Scan on hp_raw (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=356)
> (2 rows)

It's fairly obvious that you have never vacuumed or analyzed hp_raw,
since those numbers are the fallback defaults when a table is completely
unknown to the planner :-(

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that what I should infer from this
> is that Postgres is indeed using hash aggregation. I just tried set
> enable_hashagg = off, per your suggestion, and the SELECT INTO is grouping
> away without blowup this time. Unfortunately, there's no end in sight. I've
> let it sit and crank for an hour now, and it's still going.

If you are running with the default value of sort_mem, it wouldn't be
surprising for a sort-based aggregation to take awhile :-(. I would
suggest cranking sort_mem up to something large (several hundred meg,
maybe) for this specific operation.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Patrick Vachon 2004-08-09 21:13:24 Implicit join
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-08-09 20:41:40 Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 Feature List?