From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build |
Date: | 2011-08-30 17:29:13 |
Message-ID: | 4E5D1DE9.8070502@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 30.08.2011 13:29, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
> heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> So, over 50% of the CPU time is spent in choosing a block from the
>> temporary files. That should be pretty easy to improve..
>>
> Yes, probably we can just remove free blocks sorting.
Ok, the first results are in for that:
testname | nrows | duration | accesses
---------------------------+-----------+-----------------+----------
points unordered buffered | 250000000 | 06:00:23.707579 | 4049832
From the previous test runs, the unbuffered index build took under 4
hours, so even though this is a lot better than with the sorting, it's
still a loss compared to non-buffered build.
I had vmstat running during most of this index build. At a quick glance,
it doesn't seem to be CPU bound anymore. I suspect the buffers in the
temporary file gets very fragmented. Or, we're reading it in backwards
order because the buffers work in a LIFO fashion. The system seems to be
doing about 5 MB/s of I/O during the build, which sounds like a figure
you'd get for more or less random I/O.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-30 18:25:12 | Re: Inputting relative datetimes |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-30 16:50:19 | Re: dropdb and dropuser: IF EXISTS |