Ahh. All these years (albeit sporadic), I never knew about FETCH_COUNT. That makes sense. Thanks muchly.
On 06/09/2013 14:11, "Suzuki Hironobu" <hiron...@interdb.jp> wrote: >(13/09/06 21:06), Tim Kane wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have a fairly simple query, running on a particularly large table. >>For >> illustration: >> >> echo "select * from really_big_table;" | psql my_database > /dev/null >> >> >> When I monitor the memory usage of the psql session, it continually >>grows. >> In fact, for this particularly large table it grows to the point of >> consuming all swap, before the OOM killer takes steps to resolve it. >> Clearly, this isn't what I'd like to happen. >> >> >> My settings are: >> Postgresql 9.1.9 >> work_mem = 256MB >> effective_cache_size = 12GB >> shared_buffers = 6GB >> >> I have 24GB physical ram to play with. >> > >This is a client side problem (not server size). >See the description of FETCH_COUNT, please. >http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/app-psql.html > > >echo "select * from really_big_table;" | psql --variable=FETCH_COUNT=100 >my_database > /dev/null > > >Regards, > > > > > >-- >Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) >To make changes to your subscription: >http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
