| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Dept of ugly hacks: eliminating padding space in system indexes |
| Date: | 2008-06-24 15:10:34 |
| Message-ID: | 48610E6A.90709@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Shane Ambler wrote:
>> Mark Mielke wrote:
>>
>>> Not that I disagree with your change, but < 5 Mbytes in 4 Gbytes of
>>> RAM for my main PostgreSQL system that I manage seems like a drop in
>>> the bucket. Even if 40% of pg_class_relname and pg_proc_proname
>>> indices was saved - we're talking about 154 Kbytes saved on both
>>> those indices combined. Minor? Major? I bet I wouldn't notice unless
>>> my database requirements used up all RAM, and even then I'm
>>> suspecting it wouldn't matter except for border line cases (like all
>>> pages required for everything else happened to equal 4 Gbytes near
>>> exactly).
>>
>> Guess the mileage will vary depending on the complexity of the db
>> structure. Shorter names will also benefit more than longer ones.
>
> There are PostgreSQL users out there with more than 100,000 tables per
> server instance. This will make more of a difference to them.
More than I think people realize.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> --Josh
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-06-24 15:11:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-06-24 15:02:48 | Re: Dept of ugly hacks: eliminating padding space in system indexes |