On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Matt Magoffin <postgresql.org@msqr.us> wrote:
>> I don't think changing work_mem down is actually going to reduce the
>> memory allocated without changing the plan to something less optimal.
>> In the end, all of this is putting off the inevitable, if you get enough
>> PGs going and enough requests and whatnot, you're going to start running
>> out of memory again. Same if you get larger data sets that take up more
>> hash table space or similar. Eventually you might need a bigger box,
>> but let's try to get everything in the current box to at least be used
>> first..
>
> Yes... and indeed changing vm.overcommit_ratio to 80 does allow that
> previously-failing query to execute successfully. Do you think this is
> also what caused the out-of-memory error we saw today just when a
> transaction was initiated?
Curious, what's the explain analyze look like for that one?
