| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Does RelCache/SysCache shrink except when relations are deleted? |
| Date: | 2011-09-29 14:45:00 |
| Message-ID: | 28103.1317307500@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... It seems that we used to have
> some kind of LRU algorithm to prevent excessive memory usage, but we
> rippped it out because it was too expensive (see commit
> 8b9bc234ad43dfa788bde40ebf12e94f16556b7f).
Not only was it too expensive, but performance fell off a cliff as soon
as you had a catalog working set large enough to cause the code to
actually do something, I'm not in favor of putting anything like that
back in ---- people who have huge catalogs will just start complaining
about something different, ie, why did their apps get so much slower.
The short answer here is "if you want a database with 100000 tables,
you'd better be running it on more than desktop-sized hardware".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MauMau | 2011-09-29 15:05:36 | Re: Does RelCache/SysCache shrink except when relations are deleted? |
| Previous Message | Dickson S. Guedes | 2011-09-29 14:43:02 | Re: Feature proposal: www_fdw |