Re: Out of Memory errors are frustrating as heck!
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Gunther <raj@gusw.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2019-04-20T19:30:09Z
Lists: pgsql-performance
Attachments
- limit-hash-nbatches.patch (text/x-diff) patch
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 11:24:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Gunther <raj@gusw.net> writes: > > ExecutorState: 2234123384 total in 266261 blocks; 3782328 free (17244 chunks); 2230341056 used > > Oooh, that looks like a memory leak right enough. The ExecutorState > should not get that big for any reasonable query. On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:30:19AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Hmm ... this matches up with a vague thought I had that for some reason > the hash join might be spawning a huge number of separate batches. > Each batch would have a couple of files with associated in-memory > state including an 8K I/O buffer, so you could account for the On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:24:53PM -0400, Gunther wrote: > -> Hash (cost=2861845.87..2861845.87 rows=34619 width=74) (actual time=199792.446..199792.446 rows=113478127 loops=1) > Buckets: 65536 (originally 65536) Batches: 131072 (originally 2) Memory Usage: 189207kB Is it significant that there are ~2x as many ExecutorState blocks as there are batches ? 266261/131072 => 2.03... If there was 1 blocks leaked when batch=2, and 2 blocks leaked when batch=4, and 4 blocks leaked when batch=131072, then when batch=16, there'd be 64k leaked blocks, and 131072 total blocks. I'm guessing Tom probably already thought of this, but: 2230341056/266261 => ~8376 which is pretty close to the 8kB I/O buffer you were talking about (if the number of same-sized buffers much greater than other allocations). If Tom thinks (as I understand) that the issue is *not* a memory leak, but out of control increasing of nbatches, and failure to account for their size...then this patch might help. The number of batches is increased to avoid exceeding work_mem. With very low work_mem (or very larger number of tuples hashed), it'll try to use a large number of batches. At some point the memory used by BatchFiles structure (increasing by powers of two) itself exceeds work_mem. With larger work_mem, there's less need for more batches. So the number of batches used for small work_mem needs to be constrained, either based on work_mem, or at all. With my patch, the number of batches is nonlinear WRT work_mem, and reaches a maximum for moderately small work_mem. The goal is to choose the optimal number of batches to minimize the degree to which work_mem is exceeded. Justin
Commits
-
Consider BufFiles when adjusting hashjoin parameters
- a1b4f289beec 18.0 landed
-
Allocate hash join files in a separate memory context
- 8c4040edf456 16.0 landed