Hi everyone,
I have a largish table (> 8GB). I'm doing a very simple single group
by on. I am the only user of this database. If I set work mem to
anything under 2GB (e.g. 1900MB) the postmaster process stops at that
value while it's peforming it's group by. There is only one hash
operation so tha
Seq Scan on partner_country_keyword
(cost=0.00..2310878.80 rows=126170880 width=28)"
So this is a planning mistake? Should a hash be allowed to grow larger
than work_mem before it starts to use the disk?
On May 14, 4:11 pm, st...@enterprisedb.com (Gregory Stark) wrote:
> wickro writes:
>
> HashAggregate doesn't have any ability to spill to disk. The planner
> will not select a HashAggregate if it thinks the required hash table
> would be larger than work_mem. What you've evidently got here is a
> misestimate of the required hash table size, which most likely is
> stemming from a
