Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables
Date
Msg-id 7020.1214344479@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables  ("Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker@gmail.com> writes:
> For this query, work_mem is 100MB and maintenance_work_mem is 1GB, on a
> system with 8GB of memory.  Notably I just installed a new storage subsystem
> and upgraded to 8.3.1 less than a week ago, so my experience with this
> instance is somewhat limited.  Creating the table in this case takes half an
> hour and then indexing it requires almost an hour.

These numbers seem to me to be pretty strong evidence that
maintenance_work_mem = 1GB is a mistake.  Try it at 100MB and then some
intermediate values.

Now, *why* it is a mistake is interesting to speculate about, but
let's confirm the theory first.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jeffrey Baker"
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables