temporary file location?

Started by Vincent Stoesselabout 24 years ago3 messagesgeneral
Jump to latest
#1Vincent Stoessel
vincent@xaymaca.com

At the end of a long query that I am running I got the following error:

ERROR: ltsWriteBlock: failed to write block 2427094 of temporary file
Perhaps out of disk space?

my df -h looks like this:

Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda6 372M 215M 138M 61% /
/dev/sda1 45M 16M 27M 36% /boot
/dev/sda3 8.5G 811M 7.2G 10% /home
none 250M 0 250M 0% /dev/shm
/dev/sda2 23G 3.6G 18G 16% /usr
/dev/sda7 251M 142M 96M 60% /var

Yes, these are the default redhat partitions. Where is postgresql
writing temporary tables to? Is that a configurable parameter?
Thanks.

#2Roderick A. Anderson
raanders@acm.org
In reply to: Vincent Stoessel (#1)
Re: temporary file location?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Vincent Stoessel wrote:

Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda6 372M 215M 138M 61% /
/dev/sda1 45M 16M 27M 36% /boot
/dev/sda3 8.5G 811M 7.2G 10% /home
none 250M 0 250M 0% /dev/shm
/dev/sda2 23G 3.6G 18G 16% /usr
/dev/sda7 251M 142M 96M 60% /var

Redhat RPM install of PG? '/var/lib/pgsql/'

Rod
--
Why is it so easy to throw caution to the wind.
Shouldn't it be heavier and shaped like an anvil?

Jon Anderson

#3Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Vincent Stoessel (#1)
Re: temporary file location?

Vincent Stoessel <vincent@xaymaca.com> writes:

At the end of a long query that I am running I got the following error:
ERROR: ltsWriteBlock: failed to write block 2427094 of temporary file
Perhaps out of disk space?

Hm ... bc says 2427094 * 8192 = 19882754048, or about 18.5Gb.

Yes, these are the default redhat partitions. Where is postgresql
writing temporary tables to? Is that a configurable parameter?

They're under $PGDATA, and you're already filling your biggest
partition, so moving won't help anyway. I'd suggest looking for a more
efficient way to do the query, instead.

Considering that your total database must be somewhere under 3.6G,
I wonder whether your query is even correct --- why should it be needing
18+G (possibly far more, we cannot tell) of temp data? I wonder if
you've got an unconstrained join or something like that.

regards, tom lane