>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:54 PM, in message
<7020(dot)1214344479(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 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.
Could this be related to hint bit rewrites during indexing?
Would a vacuum between creation and indexing be a good way to tell?
-Kevin