On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:21:05 +0200
Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 at 12:59, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@garret.ru> wrote:
> >
> > Hi hackers,
> >
> > Too small value of work_mem cause memory overflow in parallel hash join
> > because of too much number batches.
> > There is the plan:
>
> [...]
>
> > There is still some gap between size reported by memory context sump and
> > actual size of backend.
> > But is seems to be obvious, that trying to fit in work_mem
> > sharedtuplestore creates so much batches, that them consume much more
> > memory than work_mem.
Indeed. The memory consumed by batches is not accounted and the consumption
reported in explain analyze is wrong.
Would you be able to test the latest patchset posted [1] ? This does not fix
the work_mem overflow, but it helps to keep the number of batches
balanced and acceptable. Any feedback, comment or review would be useful.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20230408020119.32a0841b%40karst#616c1f41fcc10e8f89d41e8e5693618c
Regards,
