Re: About the performance of startup after dropping many tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gan Jiadong <ganjd(at)huawei(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, liyuesen(at)huawei(dot)com, yaoyiyu(at)huawei(dot)com, liuxingyu(at)huawei(dot)com, tianwengang(at)huawei(dot)com
Subject: Re: About the performance of startup after dropping many tables
Date: 2011-02-18 03:37:24
Message-ID: 5095.1298000244@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gan Jiadong <ganjd(at)huawei(dot)com> writes:
> we have PG 8.3.13 in our system. When running performance cases, we find the
> startup recovery cost about 3 minutes. It is too long in our system.

Maybe you should rethink the assumption that dropping 40000 tables is a
cheap operation. Why do you have that many in the first place, let
alone that many that you drop and recreate frequently? Almost
certainly, you need a better-conceived schema.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-18 03:40:26 Re: Add support for logging the current role
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2011-02-18 03:17:44 WIP - Add ability to constrain backend temporary file space