Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGLyafKXBMFqZCSeYikPbdYURbwr+jP6TAy8sY-8LO0V+Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash (James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash
Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
I think I see what's happening: we're running out of hash bits. > Buckets: 4194304 (originally 4194304) Batches: 32768 (originally 4096) Memory Usage: 344448kB Here it's using the lower 22 bits for the bucket number, and started out using 12 bits for the batch (!), and increased that until it got to 15 (!!). After using 22 bits for the bucket, there are only 10 bits left, so all the tuples go into the lower 1024 batches. I'm not sure how exactly this leads to wildly varying numbers of repartioning cycles (the above-quoted example did it 3 times, the version that crashed into MaxAllocSize did it ~10 times). Besides switching to 64 bit hashes so that we don't run out of information (clearly a good idea), what other options do we have? (1) We could disable repartitioning (give up on work_mem) after we've run out of bits; this will eat more memory than it should. (2) You could start stealing bucket bits; this will eat more CPU than it should, because you'd effectively have fewer active buckets (tuples will concentrated on the bits you didn't steal).
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: