On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Atri Sharma <atri.j...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
