Re: Huge memory consumption on partitioned table with FKs

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:53 PM Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:42 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:39 PM Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:43 PM Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> My point below is a bit off-topic, but I want to share it here. Since
>> >> we implement a partitioned table in PG with the inherited class, it has much
>> >> more flexibility than other databases. Like in PG, we allow different partitions
>> >> have different physical order, different indexes, maybe different index states.
>> >> that would cause our development work hard in many places and cause some
>> >> runtime issues as well (like catalog memory usage), have we discussed
>> >> limiting some flexibility so that we can have better coding/running experience?
>> >> I want to do some research in this direction, but it would be better that I can
>> >> listen to any advice from others. More specifically, I want to reduce the memory
>> >> usage of Partitioned table/index as the first step. In my testing, each IndexOptInfo
>> >> will use 2kB memory in each backend.
>> >
>> >
>> > As for the compatible issue, will it be ok to introduce a new concept like "
>> > CREATE TABLE p (a int) partitioned by list(a) RESTRICTED". We can add these
>> > limitation to restricted partitioned relation only.
>>
>> I think you'd agree that the topics you want to discuss deserve a
>> separate discussion thread. You may refer to this discussion in that
>> new thread if you think that your proposals can solve the problem
>> being discussed here more generally, which would of course be great.
>
> Sure, I can prepare more data and start a new thread for this.

Great, thanks.

--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com