Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: "Ben Zeev, Lior" <lior(dot)ben-zeev(at)hp(dot)com>
Cc: Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture
Date: 2013-05-27 13:43:42
Message-ID: 20130527134342.GS8597@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Ben Zeev, Lior (lior(dot)ben-zeev(at)hp(dot)com) wrote:
> Each query is running in a separate transaction.

Interesting. You might also compile with CATCACHE_STATS (and not
CATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE, or perhaps with and without) and then check out
your logs after the process ends (you might need to increase the logging
level to DEBUG2 if you don't see anything initially).

> Why does portioning is done better rather than using partial index?

There's a couple of reasons, but for one thing, you can do parallel
loading of data into partitioned tables (particularly if you refer to
the individual partitions directly rather than going through the
top-level table with a trigger or similar). Trying to parallel load
into one table with 500 indexes would be pretty painful, I expect.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Albe Laurenz 2013-05-27 13:49:06 Re: Unsigned integer types
Previous Message Ben Zeev, Lior 2013-05-27 13:30:45 Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture