On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:49 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Andres Freund escribió:
> >> I find it way much easier to believe such issues exist on a tables in
> >> constrast to indexes. The likelihood to get sequential accesses on an index is
> >> small enough on a big table to make it unlikely to matter much.
> > Vacuum walks indexes sequentially, for one.
> That and index-based range scans were the main two use-cases I was
> concerned would be degraded by interleaving index builds, compared with
> doing them in succession.
I guess that tweaking file systems to allocate in bigger chunks help
here ? I know that xfs can be tuned in that regard, but how about other
common file systems like ext3 ?
Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability
Services, Consulting and Training
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Christian Brink||Date: 2010-03-17 21:25:35|
|Subject: Forcing index scan on query produces 16x faster|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-03-17 20:49:01|
|Subject: Re: Building multiple indexes concurrently|