> > > I don't know how big of a performance boost it provides in the cache, but
> > > removing the functions associated with the char types shrank the pg_proc
> > > table from 906 to 842 entries or a bit over 7%.
No performance impact.
> > > Want to shrink it further? Of those remaining 842, _230_ are for the geometric
> > > types! Throw in 25 more for the cash/money functions. Bloat city if you
> > > never use these things. Thirty percent could be moved out to contrib and
> > > not missed by most postgres users.
> > Yes, but if they are never referenced, the cache is empty for those
> > types. Unless there is some performance change with their removal, why
> > remove them? Disk space of binary?
> How does the cache really work then? Does one pg disk block map to one buffer?
> When you say "the cache is empty for those types.", what do you mean?
The function cache has one entry for each function in use. If a function has
never been called, then no cache entry is ever created for it. The cache
is organized per function, it is not part of the buffer / page cache so
each entry only takes a few bytes.
David Gould dg(at)illustra(dot)com 510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468
Informix Software (No, really) 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612
- Linux. Not because it is free. Because it is better.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hal Snyder||Date: 1998-03-24 19:23:30|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres "in the field"|
|Previous:||From: David Gould||Date: 1998-03-24 19:10:10|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal|