Lonni J Friedman <netllama@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:13:59 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hmm, looks like a hash join ran out of memory. What PG version is this
>> again, and what do you have sort_mem set to? Can you show an EXPLAIN
>> for the query that is failing like this?
> I've attached the explain for the query that is blowing up.
One of the three Hash steps must be absorbing a whole lot more rows than
the planner is expecting, but all of them look like fairly
straightforward estimation situations:
-> Hash (cost=108.96..108.96 rows=28 width=24)
-> Index Scan using mntr_subscr_usrevt on mntr_subscription sfmain_monitoringsubscriptio0 (cost=0.00..108.96 rows=28 width=24)
Index Cond: (((user_id)::text = 'user1187'::text) AND ((event_operation)::text = 'update'::text))
-> Hash (cost=701.44..701.44 rows=34444 width=24)
-> Seq Scan on field_value tracker_artifact_group0 (cost=0.00..701.44 rows=34444 width=24)
-> Hash (cost=5.74..5.74 rows=1 width=80)
-> Index Scan using project_path on project tracker_artifact_extension_f1 (cost=0.00..5.74 rows=1 width=80)
Index Cond: (("path")::text = 'projects.meeting_broker_v3'::text)
Filter: ((("path")::text = 'projects.meeting_broker_v3'::text) OR (("path")::text ~~ 'projects.meeting_broker_v3.%'::text))
Perhaps one of these tables hasn't been vacuumed/analyzed and is way
bigger than the planner thinks? Can you check into how many rows
actually meet the identified conditions?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
