Message-ID: <3E95D3FE.5DE02EA6@Yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:28:46 -0400
From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
Organization: Home
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>, Peter Galbavy <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
References: <10478.1049927451@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<003f01c2ff40$9f1a0e70$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>
	<3625.1049983061@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1049993435.1886.24.camel@fuji.krosing.net>
	<5015.1049993977@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> writes:
> > Tom Lane kirjutas N, 10.04.2003 kell 16:57:
> >> See my response to ljb --- I think that in practice people assemble each
> >> message before sending anyway.
> 
> > I just tested it by running "select *" on 68M records (6.5 GB data)
> > table and you seem to be wrong - while psql shows nothing, its size
> > starts rapidly growing (I ^C it at ~500M) , while backend stays at
> > stable 32M, which indicates that postgres starts to push data out as
> > fast as it can get it.
> 
> Sure.  "Message" here is at the granularity of one data row, not an
> entire query result.

Could even be smaller since TOASTed items don't get loaded at the row
level but rather one after another. So a 68M row consisting of 4 17M
fields doesn't require 68M of memory to be sent to the client.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #