Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, "Takahiro Itagaki" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2010-01-25 19:46:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Did you happen to notice anything about pg_dump's memory
>>> consumption?
> I took a closer look, and there's some bad news, I think.  The above
> numbers were from the ends of the range.  I've gone back over and
> found that while it dropped about 2.1 GB almost immediately, cache
> usage slowly dropped throughout the dump, and bottomed at about 6.9
> GB below baseline.

OK, that's still not very scary --- it just means my off-the-cuff
estimate of 1:1 space usage was bad.  3:1 isn't that surprising either
given padding and other issues.  The representation of ArchiveEntries
could probably be made a bit more compact ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ivan Sergio BorgonovoDate: 2010-01-25 19:50:51
Subject: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2010-01-25 19:45:25
Subject: Re: Review: Typed Table

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group