Re: [100% SPAM] Re: Memory usage per postmaster process

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Grzegorz Tańczyk <goliatus(at)polzone(dot)pl>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [100% SPAM] Re: Memory usage per postmaster process
Date: 2013-11-02 19:47:28
Message-ID: 13043.1383421648@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

=?UTF-8?B?R3J6ZWdvcnogVGHFhGN6eWs=?= <goliatus(at)polzone(dot)pl> writes:
> Did tsearch2 dictionary caching implementation improve after 8.3 on this
> matter?

Well, there was this:

Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Branch: master Release: REL9_1_BR [3e5f9412d] 2010-10-06 19:31:05 -0400

Reduce the memory requirement for large ispell dictionaries.

This patch eliminates per-chunk palloc overhead for most small allocations
needed in the representation of an ispell dictionary. This saves close to
a factor of 2 on the current Czech ispell data. While it doesn't cover
every last small allocation in the ispell code, we are at the point of
diminishing returns, because about 95% of the allocations are covered
already.

Pavel Stehule, rather heavily revised by Tom

If you're not using ispell, it's not relevant, and I'm not sure whether
the savings were significant for anything but Czech.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2013-11-02 22:13:35 Re: How can I run a PostgreSQL database outside /var/run/postgresql?
Previous Message Grzegorz Tańczyk 2013-11-02 19:07:19 Re: [100% SPAM] Re: Memory usage per postmaster process