Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

From: Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: "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: 2013-05-27 14:23:59
Message-ID: CAOeZVicCSmiAoLrSYAcLvKNtzuEeKMFDOotJP-tykDS6K+hs3w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>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.

Regards,

Atri

--
Regards,

Atri
l'apprenant

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-05-27 14:25:46 Re: repeated warnings with 9.3 Beta 1 on windows
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-05-27 14:16:12 Re: Unsigned integer types