On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 2:23 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:44 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > 3) Most of the execution plans look reasonable, except that some of the
> > plans look like this:
> >
> >
> > QUERY PLAN
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Limit
> > -> GroupAggregate
> > Group Key: t.a, t.b, t.c, t.d
> > -> Incremental Sort
> > Sort Key: t.a, t.b, t.c, t.d
> > Presorted Key: t.a, t.b, t.c
> > -> Incremental Sort
> > Sort Key: t.a, t.b, t.c
> > Presorted Key: t.a, t.b
> > -> Index Scan using t_a_b_idx on t
> > (10 rows)
> >
> > i.e. there are two incremental sorts on top of each other, with
> > different prefixes. But this this is not a new issue - it happens with
> > queries like this:
> >
> > SELECT a, b, c, d, count(*) FROM (
> > SELECT * FROM t ORDER BY a, b, c
> > ) foo GROUP BY a, b, c, d limit 1000;
> >
> > i.e. there's a subquery with a subset of pathkeys. Without incremental
> > sort the plan looks like this:
> >
> > QUERY PLAN
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > Limit
> > -> GroupAggregate
> > Group Key: t.a, t.b, t.c, t.d
> > -> Sort
> > Sort Key: t.a, t.b, t.c, t.d
> > -> Sort
> > Sort Key: t.a, t.b, t.c
> > -> Seq Scan on t
> > (8 rows)
> >
> > so essentially the same plan shape. What bugs me though is that there
> > seems to be some sort of memory leak, so that this query consumes
> > gigabytes os RAM before it gets killed by OOM. But the memory seems not
> > to be allocated in any memory context (at least MemoryContextStats don't
> > show anything like that), so I'm not sure what's going on.
> >
> > Reproducing it is fairly simple:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE t (a bigint, b bigint, c bigint, d bigint);
> > INSERT INTO t SELECT
> > 1000*random(), 1000*random(), 1000*random(), 1000*random()
> > FROM generate_series(1,10000000) s(i);
> > CREATE INDEX idx ON t(a,b);
> > ANALYZE t;
> >
> > EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT a, b, c, d, count(*)
> > FROM (SELECT * FROM t ORDER BY a, b, c) foo GROUP BY a, b, c, d
> > LIMIT 100;
>
> While trying to reproduce this, instead of lots of memory usage, I got
> the attached assertion failure instead.
And, without the EXPLAIN ANALYZE was able to get this one, which will
probably be a lot more helpful.
James
