| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| 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 13:01:35 |
| Message-ID: | 51A3592F.9080707@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/27/2013 01:25 PM, Ben Zeev, Lior wrote:
> Thanks Atri!
>
> Do you know why PostgreSQL store the indexes in memory per process and not in the shared memory?
From shared_buffers point of view tables and indexes are identical, both
use the
same shared memory in (usually) 8KB pages
> Is there a way to prevent it store the indexes data per process, and force it storing it in the shared memory?
It already does.
Per-query sorts and hashtables are stored in local memory, ordinary
tables and indexes are in shared.
--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ben Zeev, Lior | 2013-05-27 13:04:10 | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-05-27 12:45:00 | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |