Re: index creation order?

If it is 7.4 beta 5 or later, I would definitely go with A.

Adding indexes after the fact seems to be much quicker. Foreign keys use
the same algorithm prior to beta 5 regardless of timing.

A primary key and unique index will have approx the same performance (a
check for NULL isn't very costly).

On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 11:02, Allen Landsidel wrote:
> Yet another question.. thanks to everyone responding to all these so far.. ;)
>
> This one is basically.. given I have a big table already in COPY format,
> about 28 million rows, all keys guaranteed to be unique, I'm trying to find
> out which of the following will get the import finished the fastest:
>
> a) CREATE TABLE with no indexes or keys. Run the COPY (fast, ~30min), then
> CREATE INDEX on each column it's needed on, and ALTER TABLE for the pk and
> each fk needed.
>
> b) Same as above, but instead of ALTER TABLE -- ditch the FK, and CREATE
> UNIQUE INDEX on the PK.
>
> c) CREATE TABLE with the PK/FK's in the table structure, CREATE INDEX on
> needed columns, then run the COPY.
>
> d) .. is to c as b is to a .. Don't create PK/FK's, just CREATE UNIQUE
> INDEX after table creation, then run the COPY.
>
> My gut instinct tells me that in order, fastest to slowest, it's going to
> be d,b,c,a; this is what I've experienced on other DBs such as MSSQL and
> Oracle.
>
> If there isn't a significant difference between all of them, performance
> wise, I think something is dreadfully wrong here. Running "a", the ALTER
> TABLE to add the PK ran for 17 hours and still wasn't finished.
>
> The table without indexes or keys is:
> CREATE TABLE foo (
> id BIGINT NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('foo_id_sequence'),
> master_id BIGINT NOT NULL,
> other_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
> status INTEGER NOT NULL,
> addtime TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE DEFAULT now()
> );
>
> Details on machine and configuration are:
>
> The machine is the same one I've mentioned before.. SMP AthlonMP 2800+
> (2.1GHz), 4x18GB 15krpm SCSI RAID-0 with 256MB onboard cache on a
> quad-channel ICP-Vortex controller, 2GB physical memory. Running FreeBSD
> RELENG_4, relevant filesystems with softupdates enabled and mounted noatime.
>
> kernel options are:
> maxusers 0
>
> options MAXDSIZ="(1536UL*1024*1024)" # maximum limit
> options MAXSSIZ="(512UL*1024*1024)" # maximum stack
> options DFLDSIZ="(512UL*1024*1024)" # default limit
> options VM_BCACHE_SIZE_MAX="(384UL*1024*1024)" # cache size upped
> from default 200MB
> options SYSVSHM #SYSV-style shared memory
> options SYSVMSG #SYSV-style message queues
> options SYSVSEM #SYSV-style semaphores
> options SHMMAXPGS=262144
> options SHMALL=262144
> options SHMSEG=256
> options SEMMNI=384
> options SEMMNS=768
> options SEMMNU=384
> options SEMMAP=384
>
> postgresql.conf settings are:
>
> shared_buffers = 30000
> max_fsm_relations = 10000
> max_fsm_pages = 2000000
> max_locks_per_transaction = 64
> wal_buffers = 128
> sort_mem = 1310720 (1.2GB)
> vacuum_mem = 262144 (256MB)
> checkpoint_segments = 64
> checkpoint_timeout = 1200
> commit_delay = 20000
> commit_siblings = 2
> fsync=true
> random_page_cost = 1.7
> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.005
> cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.005
> cpu_operator_cost = 0.0012
>
> stats_start_collector = true
> stats_command_string = true
> stats_row_level = true
> stats_block_level = true
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>