| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Ben Zeev, Lior" <lior(dot)ben-zeev(at)hp(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |
| Date: | 2013-05-28 14:28:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa7PDWvBpHL4vri2q5qzqc4Xzke1R6-ahy+wX955o+0LQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >We may still be able to do better than what we're doing
>> today, but I'm still suspicious that you're going to run into other
>> issues with having 500 indexes on a table anyway.
>
> +1. I am suspicious that the large number of indexes is the problem
> here,even if the problem is not with book keeping associated with
> those indexes.
Right. The problem seems likely to be that each additional index
requires a relcache entry, which uses some backend-local memory. But
NOT having those backend-local relcache entries would likely be
devastating for performance.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-05-28 14:31:11 | Re: background worker and normal exit |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-05-28 14:23:46 | Re: background worker and normal exit |