Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > I'm not clear that building from WAL is really going to be that much faster.
> > A) algorithmically it's only the factor of log(n) that you're talking about.
> > and B) the WAL will have records for every write, not just the final product,
> > so it might potentially have a lot more writes to do.
> 
> Wrong ... what we log in WAL for a btree index build is just the series
> of completed index page images.  Recreation of the index would proceed
> at whatever your disk read/write bandwidth is.
> 
> Like Alvaro, I suspect that people who are using PITR will be concerned
> about recovery time, and would not be thrilled with any scenario that
> involves REINDEX to get the system back on its feet.

Agreed.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

• Re: Fast index build vs. PITR at 2004-06-01 19:21:25 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2004-06-01 20:29:12
	Subject: Re: Fast index build vs. PITR
Previous:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2004-06-01 20:08:11
	Subject: Re: Official Freeze Date for 7.5: July 1st, 2004