Re: Dept of ugly hacks: eliminating padding space in system indexes

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz>
Cc: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Dept of ugly hacks: eliminating padding space in system indexes
Date: 2008-06-24 15:02:48
Message-ID: 48610C98.3010600@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Shane Ambler wrote:
> Mark Mielke wrote:
>
>> Not that I disagree with your change, but < 5 Mbytes in 4 Gbytes of
>> RAM for my main PostgreSQL system that I manage seems like a drop in
>> the bucket. Even if 40% of pg_class_relname and pg_proc_proname
>> indices was saved - we're talking about 154 Kbytes saved on both those
>> indices combined. Minor? Major? I bet I wouldn't notice unless my
>> database requirements used up all RAM, and even then I'm suspecting it
>> wouldn't matter except for border line cases (like all pages required
>> for everything else happened to equal 4 Gbytes near exactly).
>
> Guess the mileage will vary depending on the complexity of the db
> structure. Shorter names will also benefit more than longer ones.

There are PostgreSQL users out there with more than 100,000 tables per
server instance. This will make more of a difference to them.

--Josh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2008-06-24 15:10:34 Re: Dept of ugly hacks: eliminating padding space in system indexes
Previous Message David Fetter 2008-06-24 14:55:23 Re: Git Repository for WITH RECURSIVE and others