Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\))
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL uses huge amount of memory
From: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOX8E_Ro9U6Qvwj8XZHbsxsviuA73RJn_nxaT=yEq2di35MZnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 09:13:13 -0700
Cc: Mauricio Martini <martini.mauricio@hotmail.com>,
 pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8A29F022-669D-4C40-B5D3-A2D1D0D727C2@elevated-dev.com>
References: 
 <MW5PR10MB57391E28809250993B92BB0782B49@MW5PR10MB5739.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAOX8E_Ro9U6Qvwj8XZHbsxsviuA73RJn_nxaT=yEq2di35MZnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Neimar Sierota <neimarsmo@gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8A29F022-669D-4C40-B5D3-A2D1D0D727C2%40elevated-dev.com>
Precedence: bulk

Could it be a difference in parallel queries? (I don't remember when =
those were added.) Certainly, a union is an example of something that =
will clearly get multiple workers.

--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottribe/


> On Mar 8, 2023, at 6:29 AM, Neimar Sierota <neimarsmo@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> I did a test as you mentioned and in postgresql version 11 I didn't =
observe any change in memory consumption while the query is executed. =
With version 14, running the same query, it is possible to observe a =
considerable increase in memory usage during execution.
> Could it be a bug in postgresql's memory management?