From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Ben Zeev, Lior" <lior(dot)ben-zeev(at)hp(dot)com> |
Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |
Date: | 2013-05-27 13:43:42 |
Message-ID: | 20130527134342.GS8597@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Ben Zeev, Lior (lior(dot)ben-zeev(at)hp(dot)com) wrote:
> Each query is running in a separate transaction.
Interesting. You might also compile with CATCACHE_STATS (and not
CATCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE, or perhaps with and without) and then check out
your logs after the process ends (you might need to increase the logging
level to DEBUG2 if you don't see anything initially).
> Why does portioning is done better rather than using partial index?
There's a couple of reasons, but for one thing, you can do parallel
loading of data into partitioned tables (particularly if you refer to
the individual partitions directly rather than going through the
top-level table with a trigger or similar). Trying to parallel load
into one table with 500 indexes would be pretty painful, I expect.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2013-05-27 13:49:06 | Re: Unsigned integer types |
Previous Message | Ben Zeev, Lior | 2013-05-27 13:30:45 | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |