From: | "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Does RelCache/SysCache shrink except when relations are deleted? |
Date: | 2011-09-29 15:05:36 |
Message-ID: | 849BF81321BF4FAAAE0FAB25E2886BFC@maumau |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> That's correct. We used to have a limit on the size of catcache
> (if memory serves, it was something like 5000 entries). We got rid of
> it after observing that performance fell off a cliff as soon as you had
> a working set larger than the cache limit. Trust me, if we had a limit,
> you'd still be here complaining, the complaint would just take a
> different form ;-)
Yes, I can imagine. Now I'll believe that caching catalog entries in local
memory without bound is one of PostgreSQL's elaborations for performance.
64-bit computing makes that approach legit. Oracle avoids duplicate catalog
entries by storing them in a shared memory, but that should necessate some
kind of locking when accessing the shared catalog entries. PostgreSQL's
approach, which does not require locking, is better for many-core
environments.
> I concur with Merlin's advice to rethink your schema. 100000 tables is
> far beyond what any sane design could require, and is costing you on
> many levels (I'm sure the OS and filesystem aren't that happy with it
> either).
I agree. I'll suggest that to the customer, too. Thank you very much.
Regards
MauMau
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-09-29 15:06:20 | Re: Feature proposal: www_fdw |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-29 14:45:00 | Re: Does RelCache/SysCache shrink except when relations are deleted? |