> I don't think changing work_mem down is actually going to reduce the > memory allocated without changing the plan to something less optimal. > In the end, all of this is putting off the inevitable, if you get enough > PGs going and enough requests and whatnot, you're going to start running > out of memory again. Same if you get larger data sets that take up more > hash table space or similar. Eventually you might need a bigger box, > but let's try to get everything in the current box to at least be used > first..
Yes... and indeed changing vm.overcommit_ratio to 80 does allow that previously-failing query to execute successfully. Do you think this is also what caused the out-of-memory error we saw today just when a transaction was initiated? Regards, Matt -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
