On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com> wrote:
> >We may still be able to do better than what we're doing
>> today, but I'm still suspicious that you're going to run into other
>> issues with having 500 indexes on a table anyway.
>
> +1. I am suspicious that the large number of indexes is the problem
> here,even if the problem is not with book keeping associated with
> those indexes.
Right. The problem seems likely to be that each additional index
requires a relcache entry, which uses some backend-local memory. But
NOT having those backend-local relcache entries would likely be
devastating for performance.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
