Re: problem with large maintenance_work_mem settings and

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: problem with large maintenance_work_mem settings and
Date: 2006-03-09 16:36:32
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 10:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>>>CREATE INDEX on a 1,8B row table (5 int columns - index created on the
>>>first row about 300M distinct values):
>>>before: 11h 51min
>>>after: 3h 11min(!)
>>Cool. Does it seem to be I/O bound now? Would you be willing to do it
>>over with oprofile turned on?
> Very.
> Any chance of trying it with different maintenance_work_mem settings?


with maintenance_work_mem = 2048000:

for 3 runs runtime between 3h11min and 3h25min

with maintenance_work_mem = 10240:

for 3 runs runtime between 2h40min and 2h50min

will try other settings as time permits


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luke Lonergan 2006-03-09 17:03:55 Re: Merge algorithms for large numbers of "tapes"
Previous Message Jonah H. Harris 2006-03-09 16:35:55 Proposal for SYNONYMS