Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture
Date
Msg-id 20130527134342.GS8597@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture  ("Ben Zeev, Lior" <lior.ben-zeev@hp.com>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture  ("Ben Zeev, Lior" <lior.ben-zeev@hp.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
* Ben Zeev, Lior (lior.ben-zeev@hp.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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Ben Zeev, Lior"
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture
Next
From: Albe Laurenz
Date:
Subject: Re: Unsigned integer types