Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables
Date: 2008-06-24 21:54:39
Message-ID: 7020.1214344479@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> For this query, work_mem is 100MB and maintenance_work_mem is 1GB, on a
> system with 8GB of memory. Notably I just installed a new storage subsystem
> and upgraded to 8.3.1 less than a week ago, so my experience with this
> instance is somewhat limited. 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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2008-06-24 22:01:15 Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables
Previous Message Jeffrey Baker 2008-06-24 21:47:41 Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables