On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 09:14:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 07:39:00PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > In the case of tablespaces, I should have thought you could keep a
> > > hash table of the names and just store an entry id in the table
> > > structure. But that's just my speculation without actually looking
> > > at the code, so don't take my word for it :-)
> >
> > Yes, please feel free to improve the code. I improved pg_upgrade CPU
> > usage for a lerge number of objects, but never thought to look at memory
> > usage. It would be a big win to just palloc/pfree the memory, rather
> > than allocate tones of memory. If you don't get to it, I will in a few
> > weeks.
>
> Thanks you for pointing out this problem. I have researched the cause
> and the major problem was that I was allocating the maximum path length
> in a struct rather than allocating just the length I needed, and was not
> reusing string pointers that I knew were not going to change.
>
> The updated attached patch significantly decreases memory consumption:
>
> tables orig patch % decrease
> ----
> 1 27,168 kB 27,168 kB 0
> 1k 46,136 kB 27,920 kB 39
> 2k 65,224 kB 28,796 kB 56
> 4k 103,276 kB 30,472 kB 70
> 8k 179,512 kB 33,900 kB 81
> 16k 331,860 kB 40,788 kB 88
> 32k 636,544 kB 54,572 kB 91
> 64k 1,245,920 kB 81,876 kB 93
>
> As you can see, a database with 64k tables shows a 93% decrease in
> memory use. I plan to apply this for PG 9.4.
Patch applied.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
