On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 08:04:20AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 20:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Casey Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On May 11, 2006, at 4:42 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > >> As your database is defined, this SQL statement will return > > >> approximately 4 trillion rows, by my calculation. As you say, it > > >> returns no rows at all when the database is empty. > > > > > *slaps forehead* I totally missed the "!=" in the where clause, Doh! > > > Thanks for hitting me with a clue-stick. > > > > I'm still wondering why you got "out of memory", though. I'd have > > expected that to grind for a really long time, gradually filling your > > disk, until you got an out-of-disk-space kind of error; if you didn't > > notice and stop it first. There aren't (supposed to be) any long-term > > memory leaks in query processing, other than than the known issue of > > pending trigger events, which you say you haven't got on this table. > > Seems broken either way, OOM or OOD. We need a way to stop runaway > queries from happening in the first place.
Well, the question still remains, had they been trying this with a 100TB table, would it have actually worked, or is there some kind of overflow? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
