Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-06-04 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
No it isn't a typo, All the tables are empty and all the indexes are empty -Original Message- From: Merlin Moncure [mailto:mmonc...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 16:10 To: Ben Zeev, Lior Cc: Atri Sharma; Stephen Frost; Pg Hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Pr

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-06-03 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
Sharma [mailto:atri.j...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 17:24 To: Stephen Frost Cc: Ben Zeev, Lior; Pg Hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture >We may still be able to do better than what we're doing > today, but I'm still suspicious that you

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-06-03 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
doesn't log the catcache statistcs Lior -Original Message- From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfr...@snowman.net] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 16:44 To: Ben Zeev, Lior Cc: Atri Sharma; Pg Hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture * Ben Zeev, Lior (lior.ben-z...@h

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-05-27 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
Great, Thanks !!! I will try and let you update -Original Message- From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfr...@snowman.net] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 16:29 To: Ben Zeev, Lior Cc: Atri Sharma; Pg Hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture Lior, * Ben Zeev, Lior

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-05-27 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
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

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-05-27 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
ost [mailto:sfr...@snowman.net] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 15:43 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: > The case which I'm seeing is that I have an empty table with

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-05-27 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
Hi Atri, But TOAST only occur if the tuple size exceed 2KB, doesn't it? Lior -Original Message- From: Atri Sharma [mailto:atri.j...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 15:39 To: Ben Zeev, Lior Cc: Stephen Frost; Pg Hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process m

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-05-27 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
= 20GB of memory What is the reason to consume so much memory for empty indexes? Thanks, Lior -Original Message- From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfr...@snowman.net] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 15:16 To: Atri Sharma Cc: Ben Zeev, Lior; Pg Hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Proc

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-05-27 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 13:19 To: Ben Zeev, Lior; Pg Hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Ben Zeev, Lior wrote: > Hi Atri, > > Thanks for your answer! > Do you have idea what may be the reason that Postgr

[HACKERS] PostgreSQL Process memory architecture

2013-05-27 Thread Ben Zeev, Lior
Hi, I have a question regarding the memory consumption per process in PostgreSQL 9.2 Does each PostgreSQL process allocating in its own memory (Not shared memory) a cache of all the database catalog which it access during the SQL execution? I mean does each process holds all the catalog indexes