On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:43 PM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
> 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.
>
>
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:21:05 +0200
Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 at 12:59, Konstantin Knizhnik 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:
>
>
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:59 PM Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Too small value of work_mem cause memory overflow in parallel hash join
> because of too much number batches.
Yeah. Not only in parallel hash join, but in any hash join
(admittedly parallel hash join has higher per-batch overheads;
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 at 12:59, Konstantin Knizhnik 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
>
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:
explain SELECT * FROM solixschema.MIG_50GB_APR04_G1_H a join
solixschema.MIG_50GB_APR04_G2_H b on a.seq_pk = b.seq_pk join
