From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kenneth Marshall" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "Xiao Meng" <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: hash index improving v3 |
Date: | 2008-09-23 04:05:59 |
Message-ID: | 17323.1222142759@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I'm considering changing hashbuild to switch over at shared_buffers instead
>>> of effective_cache_size --- any thoughts about that?
>>
>> Switching to shared_buffers gets my vote, on my test table with
>> 50,000,000 rows it takes about 8 minutes to create an index using the
>> default effective_cache_size. With effective_cache_size set to 6GB
>> (machine has 8GB) its still going an hour later.
> Agreed. I think using shared_buffers as a cutoff is a much better idea as well.
Already done in CVS a week or so back, but thanks for following up with
some confirmation.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-23 04:24:18 | Re: pg_type.h regression? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-23 03:54:58 | Re: Proposed patch: make SQL interval-literal syntax work per spec |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-23 04:31:02 | Re: hash index improving v3 |
Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2008-09-23 03:43:14 | Re: hash index improving v3 |