Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Dept of ugly hacks: eliminating padding space in system indexes

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>
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: 2008-06-25 17:36:33
Message-ID: 48628221.1070802@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Mark,

> 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).

Again, I think the best way to test this would be to create an 
installation with more than 100,000 tables & views. That's not 
hypothetical; I've encountered it already twice in production users.

--Josh Berkus

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: NickDate: 2008-06-25 18:02:16
Subject: Creating a VIEW with a POINT column
Previous:From: Andrew HammondDate: 2008-06-25 16:57:55
Subject: Re: the un-vacuumable table

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group