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 |
Message-ID: | 44105990.3000607@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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?
interesting:
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
Stefan
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 |