# Memory footprint increase with 2.0 (or 1.8 with tsi1 index)

**URL:** <https://community.influxdata.com/t/memory-footprint-increase-with-2-0-or-1-8-with-tsi1-index/22680>\
**Category:** InfluxDB 2\
**Tags:** influxdb\
**Created:** [November 25, 2021, 4:07pm UTC](https://community.influxdata.com/t/memory-footprint-increase-with-2-0-or-1-8-with-tsi1-index/22680 "2021-11-25T16:07:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sahib](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex023/user_avatar/community.influxdata.com/sahib/32/8813_2.png) [@sahib](https://community.influxdata.com/u/sahib)\
**Post date:** [November 25, 2021, 4:07pm UTC](https://community.influxdata.com/t/memory-footprint-increase-with-2-0-or-1-8-with-tsi1-index/22680/1 "2021-11-25T16:07:43Z")

</div>

Hello Influx community,

I recently created a bug report over there: [[2.1] Heavy memory footprint regression from 1.8 inmem to 2.1 · Issue #22936 · influxdata/influxdb · GitHub](https://github.com/influxdata/influxdb/issues/22936)

While I still think the described behavior sounds rather buggy, I’m still curious if anyone is encountering those kind of issues. Notable regarding the memory hunger - after all my understanding was that switching from the “inmem” index to a disk based index like “tsi1” (apparently default in 2.x) should actually lower the resource hunger.

Anyone else? Did somebody find a solution to this (except “buy more RAM”)?