Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Not sure whether its worth optimizing, but had spotted this while browsing
the code a while back. So thought would post it anyways.
The stack usage for toast_insert_or_update() may run into several KBs since
the MaxHeapAttributeNumber is set to a very large value of 1600. The usage
could anywhere between 28K to 48K depending on alignment and whether its a
32-bit or a 64-bit machine.
Is it very common to have so many attributes in a table ? If not, would it be worth
to allocate only as much space as required ?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
stack usage in toast_insert_or_update()
- From: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
- To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: stack usage in toast_insert_or_update()
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:47:59 +0530
Not sure whether its worth optimizing, but had spotted this while browsing
the code a while back. So thought would post it anyways.
The stack usage for toast_insert_or_update() may run into several KBs since
the MaxHeapAttributeNumber is set to a very large value of 1600. The usage
could anywhere between 28K to 48K depending on alignment and whether its a
32-bit or a 64-bit machine.
Is it very common to have so many attributes in a table ? If not, would it be worth
to allocate only as much space as required ?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: stack usage in toast_insert_or_update()
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: stack usage in toast_insert_or_update()
- Prev by Date: V3 protocol; way to return table aliases?
- Next by Date: Bug? CREATE TABLE AS (... UNION ...)
- Previous by thread: V3 protocol; way to return table aliases?
- Next by thread: Re: stack usage in toast_insert_or_update()
- Indexes: