Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Oliver Elphick
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem
Date
Msg-id 200002031841.SAA22521@linda.lfix.co.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote: >There's a separate question about *why* such a simple query is chewing >up so much memory.  What query
plandoes EXPLAIN show for your test >query? 
 
I can show a similar problem.
 >You said this was with current sources, right?
This is with current sources: I managed to kill the backend before
it had used up all swap.  If left to run on 6.5.3 or CVS as of 2
weeks back it would kill the whole machine; I haven't let it get that
far today.

bray=# explain select * from pg_operator as a, pg_operator as b;
NOTICE:  QUERY PLAN:

Nested Loop  (cost=12604.88 rows=258064 width=162) ->  Seq Scan on pg_operator b  (cost=24.76 rows=508 width=81) ->
SeqScan on pg_operator a  (cost=24.76 rows=508 width=81)
 

EXPLAIN


-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver              PGP key from public servers; key
ID32B8FAA1                ========================================    "O come, let us worship and bow down; let us
kneel     before the LORD our maker."            Psalms 95:6 
 




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Ross J. Reedstrom"
Date:
Subject: coming ColdFusion support for PostgreSQL
Next
From: Patrick Welche
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem