From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
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 12:16:09 |
Message-ID: | 20130527121609.GF8597@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Atri Sharma (atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Ben Zeev, Lior <lior(dot)ben-zeev(at)hp(dot)com> wrote:
> > Do you have idea what may be the reason that PostgreSQL process consume more memory when there are more partial indexes on the DB table?
It might use a bit more, but it shouldn't be excessive.. What, exactly,
are you seeing and would it be possible for you to provide a repeatable
test case with a small-ish set of data?
> Well, I am not too sure, but indexes always take up more space, so if
> your backend has a lot of indexes, it will cause the process to
> consume more memory.
Indexes require additional disk space, certainly. Having a lot of
indexes, by itself, shouldn't seriously increase memory usage.
> Indexes should be used with care, as too many indexes can cause a
> memory overhead,which can cause performance degradations.
This is not generally a reason to avoid indexes. Indexes require more
disk space and must be kept up to date, making them expensive to
maintain due to increased disk i/o. Building an index uses as much
memory as it's allowed to- it uses maintenance_work_mem to limit itself.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-05-27 12:16:28 | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-05-27 12:12:17 | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |