Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol - Mailing list pgsql-interfaces

From Jan Wieck
Subject Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Date
Msg-id 3E95D3FE.5DE02EA6@Yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to More thoughts about FE/BE protocol  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-interfaces
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> writes:
> > Tom Lane kirjutas N, 10.04.2003 kell 16:57:
> >> See my response to ljb --- I think that in practice people assemble each
> >> message before sending anyway.
> 
> > I just tested it by running "select *" on 68M records (6.5 GB data)
> > table and you seem to be wrong - while psql shows nothing, its size
> > starts rapidly growing (I ^C it at ~500M) , while backend stays at
> > stable 32M, which indicates that postgres starts to push data out as
> > fast as it can get it.
> 
> Sure.  "Message" here is at the granularity of one data row, not an
> entire query result.

Could even be smaller since TOASTed items don't get loaded at the row
level but rather one after another. So a 68M row consisting of 4 17M
fields doesn't require 68M of memory to be sent to the client.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



pgsql-interfaces by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Next
From: Ian Barwick
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory leak!!