| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: regex cache | 
| Date: | 2008-06-18 21:54:00 | 
| Message-ID: | 485983F8.8010500@agliodbs.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> Having said that, I'm not sure it'd help your problem.  If your query is
>>> using more than 32 regexes concurrently, it likely is using $BIGNUM
>>> regexes concurrently.  How do we fix that?
> 
>> Hmmm.  I think there's a lot of ground between 32 and $BIGNUM.  For example, 
>> where I'm hitting a wall is 300 regexes.  Some quick testing on my opteron 
>> text machine right now shows that the execution time difference between 20rx 
>> and 50rx is around 20x.
> 
> Hmm.  Well, I still don't want to tie it to work_mem; how do you feel
> about a new GUC to determine the max number of cached REs?
Yeah. You know me, I was just trying to avoid having more GUCs.
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-18 22:08:47 | Re: regex cache | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-18 21:50:54 | Re: regex cache |