Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Cutting a third off the size of a system index has got to be worth
>>> something, but is it worth a hack as ugly as this one?
> Were you able to time any speedup?
I didn't try; can you suggest any suitable benchmark?
The performance impact is probably going to be limited by our extensive
use of catalog caches --- once a desired row is in a backend's catcache,
it doesn't take a btree search to fetch it again. Still, the system
indexes are probably "hot" enough to stay in shared buffers most of the
time, and the smaller they are the more space will be left for other
stuff, so I think there should be a distributed benefit.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: daveg||Date: 2008-06-23 23:17:35|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2008-06-23 22:59:01|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Testing pg_terminate_backend()|