Tom Lane wrote: > So while poking at a recent example from Marc Cousin (hundreds of tables > each with 1000 attributes) I observed that a simple ANALYZE would bloat > the backend process to the tune of several hundred megabytes. I think > there is a leak in CacheMemoryContext, but haven't tracked it down yet. > But I also noticed that tens of megabytes were disappearing into "Attopt > cache", and after reading the code to see what the heck that was, I am > wondering what the justification for having it is at all. In the > presumably normal case where the attribute hasn't got options, all it's > saving us is a syscache access, which is probably not noticeably more > expensive than the hash lookup. In the case where there is an option, > it's saving us an attribute_reloptions() call, but it's not apparent > to me that that's so expensive as to justify putting a cache in front > of it, especially not if we're going to do a palloc cycle anyway. > > Did anybody do any performance measurements to demonstrate that this > code has a reason to live? Because if I don't see some, I'm going > to rip it out.
Did we decide to keep the cache in attoptcache.c? Is this a TODO? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
