Re: select count() out of memory

Started by Martin Gaintyover 25 years ago3 messagesgeneral
Jump to latest
#1Martin Gainty
mgainty@hotmail.com

God morgen

Please display these memory settings from your postgresql.conf file
sort_mem
shared_buffers

Takk
Martin--
----- Original Message -----
From: <tfinneid@student.matnat.uio.no>
To: "Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: <tfinneid@student.matnat.uio.no>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] select count() out of memory

Hi

I have tried to answer to the best of my knowledge but its running on
Soalris 10, and I am not that familiar with solaris ( Go Linux!!! :)

any more memory. Either you have a very low memory ulimit (look at

ulimit

-a
in the same session as Postgres) or your machine is really low on

memory.

Perhaps you have shared_buffers set very high or some other program is
using
all your available memory (and swap)?

the machine has 32GB RAM, I dont know how much swap it has, but I do know
the disk system is a disk cluster with 16x450GB disks, it probably has a
local disk as well but I dont know how big it is.

-bash-3.00$ ulimit -a
core file size (blocks, -c) unlimited
data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited
file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
open files (-n) 256
pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 10
stack size (kbytes, -s) 10240
cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited
max user processes (-u) 16357
virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited

this is my config

checkpoint_segments = 96
effective_cache_size = 128000
shared_buffers = 430000
max_fsm_pages = 208000
max_fsm_relations = 10000

max_connections = 1000

autovacuum = off # enable autovacuum subprocess?

fsync = on # turns forced synchronization on
or off
#full_page_writes = on # recover from partial page writes
wal_sync_method = fdatasync
wal_buffers = 256

commit_delay = 5
#commit_siblings = 5 # range 1-1000

Also, what version of Postgres is this?

Apparently its 8.1.8, I thought it was 8.2

are a dump of Postgres's current memory allocations and could be useful

in

showing if there's a memory leak causing this.

The file is 20M, these are the last lines: (the first line continues
unttill ff_26000)

idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_4_value7: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_4_value2: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_4_value1: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_4_trace_id: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_3_value7: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_3_value2: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_3_value1: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_3_trace_id: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_2_value7: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_2_value2: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_2_value1: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_2_trace_id: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_1_value7: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_1_value2: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_1_value1: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
idx_attributes_g1_seq_1_ff_1_trace_id: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0
chunks); 632 used
pg_index_indrelid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks); 632
used
pg_namespace_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks); 632

used

pg_statistic_relid_att_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 328 free (0 chunks);
696 used
pg_type_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks); 632 used
pg_aggregate_fnoid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks); 632
used
pg_proc_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks); 632 used
pg_type_typname_nsp_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 328 free (0 chunks);
696 used
pg_proc_proname_args_nsp_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 256 free (0
chunks); 768 used
pg_class_relname_nsp_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 328 free (0 chunks);
696 used
pg_namespace_nspname_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks);
632 used
pg_authid_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks); 632 used
pg_trigger_tgrelid_tgname_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 328 free (0
chunks); 696 used
pg_operator_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks); 632

used

Show quoted text

pg_index_indexrelid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks);
632 used
pg_class_oid_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 392 free (0 chunks); 632 used
pg_attribute_relid_attnum_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 328 free (0
chunks); 696 used
pg_amproc_opc_proc_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 256 free (0 chunks); 768
used
pg_amop_opc_strat_index: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 256 free (0 chunks); 768
used
MdSmgr: 4186112 total in 9 blocks; 911096 free (4 chunks); 3275016 used
LockTable (locallock hash): 2088960 total in 8 blocks; 418784 free (25
chunks); 1670176 used
Timezones: 47592 total in 2 blocks; 5968 free (0 chunks); 41624 used
ErrorContext: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 8176 free (0 chunks); 16 used
ERROR: out of memory
DETAIL: Failed on request of size 130.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org/

#2Thomas Finneid
tfinneid@student.matnat.uio.no
In reply to: Martin Gainty (#1)

God morgen

Please display these memory settings from your postgresql.conf file
sort_mem
shared_buffers

I have shown the entire configuration. if its not in the configuration
shown, I have changed its value.

I have used the configuration example provided by Sun regarding running
postgres on solaris.

http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/tnb/applications_postgresql.jsp

regards

thomas

#3Thomas Finneid
tfinneid@student.matnat.uio.no
In reply to: Thomas Finneid (#2)

I have shown the entire configuration. if its not in the configuration
shown, I have changed its value.

I meant to say "I haven't changed its value"

thomas