| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql performance - SearchCatCache issue |
| Date: | 2011-06-19 03:09:18 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=+EKePh2BNePzFkL8r-DpeLTNorA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Is this profile expected?
I've certainly seen profiles before where the catcache overhead was
significant. I don't think that I've seen SearchCatCache() quite this
high on any of the profiling I've done, but then again I don't tend to
profile the same things you do, so maybe that's not surprising. I
think the interesting question is probably "where are all those calls
coming from?" and "can we optimize any of them away?" rather than "how
do we make SearchCatCache() run faster?". I would be willing to bet
money that the latter is largely an exercise in futility.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Singer | 2011-06-19 03:10:16 | Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-06-19 03:06:25 | Re: Identifying no-op length coercions |