On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 16:12 -0400, Justin Pitts wrote:
> It seems to me that a separate partition / tablespace would be a much simpler approach.
Do you mean a separate partition/ tablespace for _each_ index built
concurrently ?
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:49 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> >> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>> Andres Freund escribió:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I find it way much easier to believe such issues exist on a tables in
> >>>> constrast to indexes. The likelihood to get sequential accesses on an index is
> >>>> small enough on a big table to make it unlikely to matter much.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Vacuum walks indexes sequentially, for one.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That and index-based range scans were the main two use-cases I was
> >> concerned would be degraded by interleaving index builds, compared with
> >> doing them in succession.
> >
> > I guess that tweaking file systems to allocate in bigger chunks help
> > here ? I know that xfs can be tuned in that regard, but how about other
> > common file systems like ext3 ?
> >
> > -
> > Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> > PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability
> > Services, Consulting and Training
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> > To make changes to your subscription:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
--
Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability
Services, Consulting and Training
