On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Darren King wrote:
> > > I don't know how big of a performance boost it provides in the cache, but
> > > removing the functions associated with the char types shrank the pg_proc
> > > table from 906 to 842 entries or a bit over 7%.
> > >
> > > Want to shrink it further? Of those remaining 842, _230_ are for the geometric
> > > types! Throw in 25 more for the cash/money functions. Bloat city if you
> > > never use these things. Thirty percent could be moved out to contrib and
> > > not missed by most postgres users.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, but if they are never referenced, the cache is empty for those
> > types. Unless there is some performance change with their removal, why
> > remove them? Disk space of binary?
>
> How does the cache really work then? Does one pg disk block map to one buffer?
>
> When you say "the cache is empty for those types.", what do you mean?
I think there's some confusion about which cache is meant. I think the
previous poster (ie. the one before darren) is thinking of processor
cache, be it first level or second level. Darren is probably meaning a
postgresql internal cache....
Maarten
_____________________________________________________________________________
| TU Delft, The Netherlands, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems |
| Department of Electrical Engineering |
| Computer Architecture and Digital Technique section |
| M.Boekhold@et.tudelft.nl |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
