| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Question / requests. |
| Date: | 2016-10-10 02:51:17 |
| Message-ID: | 8b630f84-2f4a-ea21-d660-ea2a0a4b1971@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/5/16 9:58 AM, Francisco Olarte wrote:
> Is the system catalog a bottleneck for people who has real use for
> paralell vacuum? I mean, to me someone who does this must have a very
> big db on a big iron. If that does not consist of thousands and
> thousands of smallish relations, it will normally be some very big
> tables and a much smaller catalog.
Not necessarily. Anyone that makes extensive use of temp tables can end
up with a very large (and bloated) pg_attribute. AFAIK you can actually
create "temp" versions of any object that lives in a schema by
specifying pg_temp as the schema, but in practice I don't think you'll
really see anything other than pg_attribute get really large. So it
would be nice if pg_attribute could be done in parallel, but I suspect
it's one of the catalog tables that could be causing these problems.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-10-10 02:54:02 | Re: proposal: psql \setfileref |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-10-10 02:45:18 | Re: Is it time to kill support for very old servers? |