Tom Lane wrote:
> So while poking at a recent example from Marc Cousin (hundreds of tables
> each with 1000 attributes) I observed that a simple ANALYZE would bloat
> the backend process to the tune of several hundred megabytes. I think
> there is a leak in CacheMemoryContext, but haven't tracked it down yet.
> But I also noticed that tens of megabytes were disappearing into "Attopt
> cache", and after reading the code to see what the heck that was, I am
> wondering what the justification for having it is at all. In the
> presumably normal case where the attribute hasn't got options, all it's
> saving us is a syscache access, which is probably not noticeably more
> expensive than the hash lookup. In the case where there is an option,
> it's saving us an attribute_reloptions() call, but it's not apparent
> to me that that's so expensive as to justify putting a cache in front
> of it, especially not if we're going to do a palloc cycle anyway.
> Did anybody do any performance measurements to demonstrate that this
> code has a reason to live? Because if I don't see some, I'm going
> to rip it out.
Did we decide to keep the cache in attoptcache.c? Is this a TODO?
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-09-05 17:01:26|
|Subject: Re: toast tables on system catalogs|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-09-05 16:40:14|
|Subject: Reminder: 9.1 release is upcoming|