Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS

From: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, "Vivek Khera" <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, "pgsql-general General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS
Date: 2007-05-31 21:46:00
Message-ID: op.ts7n2yixcigqcu@apollo13 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:36:32 +0200, PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:20:09 +0200, Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 25, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> That's true at the level of DDL operations, but AFAIK we could
>>> parallelize table-loading and index-creation steps pretty effectively
>>> --- and that's where all the time goes.
>>
>> I would be happy with parallel builds of the indexes of a given table.   
>> That way you have just one scan of the whole table to build all its  
>> indexes.

	Just did a test :

	- large table (does not fit in RAM)
	- rows with text column (forum posts)
	- about 700K rows

Time to create 3 indexes : 61 s
Time to create 3 indexes with 3 simultaneous connections : 22 s

	That's what you would expect...
	vmstat shows the data is really loaded from disk, once with the 3  
threads, 3 times when indexes are created one at a time.

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Dudás JózsefDate: 2007-05-31 22:52:42
Subject: invalid memory alloc after insert with c trigger function
Previous:From: PFCDate: 2007-05-31 21:36:32
Subject: Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group