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

From Jeffrey Baker
Subject Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables
Date
Msg-id fd145f7d0806241515o1d9468b1ke2442f2718fe84aa@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Now, *why* it is a mistake is interesting to speculate about, but
>> let's confirm the theory first.

> Could this be related to hint bit rewrites during indexing?

If so, changing maintenance_work_mem won't improve the situation.

What I personally suspect is that Jeff's index build is swapping like
crazy, or else there's just some problem in the sort code for such a
large sort arena.  But let's get some evidence about how the index build
time varies with maintenance_work_mem before jumping to conclusions.

Well it definitely isn't that, because the machine doesn't even have a swap area defined.  vmstat during the table creation and index creation look really quite different.  During the table sort there's a heavy r/w traffic 12-20MB/s, during the index creation it's lower.  But seem to be CPU limited (i.e. one CPU is maxed out the whole time, and iowait is not very high).

I guess nobody has any interest in my proposal, only in the departure of my described experience from expected behavior :-(

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: stat() vs cygwin