Hi Stephen, Each query is running in a separate transaction.
Why does portioning is done better rather than using partial index? Thanks, Lior -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfr...@snowman.net] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 16:15 To: Ben Zeev, Lior Cc: Atri Sharma; Pg Hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture Lior, * Ben Zeev, Lior (lior.ben-z...@hp.com) wrote: > Yes, The memory utilization per PostgreSQL backend process is when > running queries against this tables, For example: select * from test where > num=2 and c2='abc' > When It start it doesn't consume to much memory, But as it execute > against more and more indexes the memory consumption grows Are these all running in one transaction, or is this usage growth across multiple transactions? If this is all in the same transaction, what happens when you do these queries in independent transactions? > This tables should contain data, But I truncate the data of the tables > because I wanted to make sure that the memory consumption is not > relate to the data inside the table, but rather to the structure of > the tables If you actually have sufficient data to make having 500 indexes on a table sensible, it strikes me that this memory utilization may not be the biggest issue you run into. If you're looking for partitioning, that's much better done, in PG at least, by using inheiritance and constraint exclusion. Thanks, Stephen -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
