| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nick | 2008-06-25 18:02:16 | Creating a VIEW with a POINT column |
| Previous Message | Andrew Hammond | 2008-06-25 16:57:55 | Re: the un-vacuumable table |