From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Building multiple indexes concurrently |
Date: | 2010-03-19 17:38:08 |
Message-ID: | 201003191838.09087.andres@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wednesday 17 March 2010 22:18:47 Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:49 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Andres Freund escribió:
> > >> I find it way much easier to believe such issues exist on a tables in
> > >> constrast to indexes. The likelihood to get sequential accesses on an
> > >> index is small enough on a big table to make it unlikely to matter
> > >> much.
> > >
> > > Vacuum walks indexes sequentially, for one.
> >
> > That and index-based range scans were the main two use-cases I was
> > concerned would be degraded by interleaving index builds, compared with
> > doing them in succession.
>
> I guess that tweaking file systems to allocate in bigger chunks help
> here ? I know that xfs can be tuned in that regard, but how about other
> common file systems like ext3 ?
ext4 should do that now by allocating the space for the files only after some
time or uppon things like fsync (xfs does the same).
ext3 has, as far as I know, neither the ability to change allocation size nor
can do delayed allocation.
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-03-19 18:20:48 | Re: mysql to postgresql, performance questions |
Previous Message | Pierre C | 2010-03-19 17:34:53 | Re: mysql to postgresql, performance questions |