| From: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Samersoff <dms(at)wplus(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: vacuum timings |
| Date: | 2000-01-21 20:29:34 |
| Message-ID: | 3888C1AE.8EB2FC27@mascari.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Conclusions:
> > > o indexes never get smaller
> >
> > Which we knew...
> >
> > > o drop/recreate index is slower than vacuum of indexes
> >
> > Quite a few people have reported finding the opposite in practice.
>
> I'm one of them. On 1,5 GB table with three indices it about twice
> slowly.
> Probably becouse vacuuming indices brakes system cache policy.
I'm another. Do the times increase linearly with each index
added? Do the times increase linearly for each index for each
field in a composite index? Does the field type being indexed
have any affect (varchar vs int)?
Mike Mascari
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-01-21 21:46:38 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump disaster |
| Previous Message | Patrick Welche | 2000-01-21 20:16:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Date/time type |