# pt-query-advisor file size limits **URL:** \ **Category:** Other Tools\ **Created:** [November 16, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/pt-query-advisor-file-size-limits/2394 "2011-11-16T16:26:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dtest](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forums.percona.com/dtest/32/859_2.png) [@dtest](https://forums.percona.com/u/dtest)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/pt-query-advisor-file-size-limits/2394/1 "2011-11-16T16:26:07Z")
I was unfortunate enough to have run pt-query-advisor on a general query log of 75GB: pt-query-advisor --type genlog general.log This (probably expectingly) ate up all the memory on the server and required a hard reboot. Luckily this was a dev server! Anyway, the server is a 12GB machine running 64-bit RHEL 5.6. I was wondering if there is a file size limit on this tool and others (pt-index-usage and pt-query-digest comes to mind, if they can handle general query logs). Or, barring that, is there a tool that will break a general log into smaller manageable files? ---
**Author:** ![xaprb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/49beb7/32.png) [@xaprb](https://forums.percona.com/u/xaprb)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 7:01am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/pt-query-advisor-file-size-limits/2394/2 "2011-11-17T07:01:35Z")
That really should NOT have used that much memory. This is a bug for sure. Please file a bug on launchpad. The workaround I can suggest is to pt-query-digest it first, with --print --no-report and --samples, to capture N distinct samples of each type of query, and then run pt-query-advisor on the result. ---
**Author:** ![dtest](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forums.percona.com/dtest/32/859_2.png) [@dtest](https://forums.percona.com/u/dtest)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2011, 11:00am UTC](https://forums.percona.com/t/pt-query-advisor-file-size-limits/2394/3 "2011-11-17T11:00:56Z")
Baron, thanks for the response. Your comment made me go back and try it again. It’s running ‘fine’, so it must have been a combination of that and some other backup stuff going on at the time. Sure does take a while to parse though! Thanks for the response.