Horton
Menu

Re: Should pg 11 use a lot more memory building an spgist index?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2018-10-26T12:44:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
>   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hmm, in my hands this produces the same size leak (~28GB) in either v10
>> or v11.  In HEAD, somebody's made it even worse (~43GB).  So this is
>> certainly pretty broken, but I'm not sure why it seems worse to you in
>> v11 than before.

> As a short term work around, could I create the index first and use 
> insert statements, each in their own transaction, to get the table loaded 
> with the index?

Yes; it might also be that you don't even need to break it up into
separate statements.

> Is the issue on Fedora taking very long to build a normal spgist index for 
> network addresses worth pursuing separately, or is it likely to be the same 
> underlying cause?

This issue only applies if it was an exclusion constraint.  If you saw
slowness or bloat with a plain index, that would be worth investigating
separately.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix memory leak in repeated SPGIST index scans.

  2. Add support for nearest-neighbor (KNN) searches to SP-GiST