From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Steven M(dot) Wheeler" <swheeler(at)sabre(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] Questions about vacuum analyze |
Date: | 1999-10-11 18:55:32 |
Message-ID: | 199910111855.OAA27707@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Wonder how our create index does it. Seems it is must be similar.
>
> CREATE INDEX (for btrees) is very similar, and really ought to share
> code. Someone apparently didn't want to figure out how to generalize
> psort.c to handle index tuples, though. The CREATE INDEX code is a
> little better for large amounts of data but a lot worse for small
> amounts --- AFAICT it doesn't take any shortcuts, even when everything
> fits in memory. (I'm sure you've noticed that CREATE INDEX hits the
> disk pretty hard even when the source table is empty :-(.)
>
> I'm planning to merge the two sets of code and keep the best features of
> both. I already have some first-draft code that allows them to work
> with >2gig data sets.
Great.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-10-11 19:17:14 | Re: [SQL] DELETE/DROP and inheritance |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-10-11 18:45:18 | Re: [SQL] Questions about vacuum analyze |