| From: | Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Building multiple indexes concurrently |
| Date: | 2010-03-17 15:07:16 |
| Message-ID: | 2c5ef4e31003170807x3f26dd77v57a1631094bc5270@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Rob Wultsch wrote:
>>> At a minimum I assume that if both of the commands were started at
>>> about the same time they would each scan the table in the same
>>> direction and whichever creation was slower would benefit from most of
>>> the table data it needed being prepopulated in shared buffers. Is this
>>> the case?
>
>> This might be optimistic;
>
> No, it's not optimistic in the least, at least not since we implemented
> synchronized seqscans (in 8.3 or thereabouts).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Where can I find details about this in the documentation?
--
Rob Wultsch
wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | VJK | 2010-03-17 15:08:03 | Fwd: shared_buffers advice |
| Previous Message | Brad Nicholson | 2010-03-17 14:41:31 | Re: Testing FusionIO |