| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gary Doades <gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index behaviour) |
| Date: | 2006-02-16 01:52:46 |
| Message-ID: | 43F3DAEE.30002@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> Ouch! That confirms my problem. I generated the random test case because
> it was easier than including the dump of my tables, but you can
> appreciate that tables 20 times the size are basically crippled when it
> comes to creating an index on them.
I have to say that I restored a few gigabyte dump on freebsd the other
day, and most of the restore time was in index creation - I didn't think
too much of it though at the time. FreeBSD 4.x.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-02-16 01:56:55 | Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-02-16 01:52:09 | Re: Strange Create Index behaviour |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-02-16 01:56:55 | Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-02-16 01:52:09 | Re: Strange Create Index behaviour |