Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: hash index improving v3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kenneth Marshall" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "Xiao Meng" <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Date: 2008-09-23 04:05:59
Message-ID: 17323.1222142759@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I'm considering changing hashbuild to switch over at shared_buffers instead
>>> of effective_cache_size --- any thoughts about that?
>> 
>> Switching to shared_buffers gets my vote, on my test table with
>> 50,000,000 rows it takes about 8 minutes to create an index using the
>> default effective_cache_size.  With effective_cache_size set to 6GB
>> (machine has 8GB) its still going an hour later.

> Agreed.  I think using shared_buffers as a cutoff is a much better idea as well.

Already done in CVS a week or so back, but thanks for following up with
some confirmation.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-09-23 04:24:18
Subject: Re: pg_type.h regression?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-09-23 03:54:58
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntax work per spec

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-09-23 04:31:02
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3
Previous:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2008-09-23 03:43:14
Subject: Re: hash index improving v3

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group