From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: COPY command details |
Date: | 2007-03-30 00:58:33 |
Message-ID: | 460C60B9.9000603@cox.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/29/07 18:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> Benjamin Arai <benjamin(at)araisoft(dot)com> writes:
>> I would prefer not to drop the index because the database is several
>> hundred gigs. I would prefer to incrementally add to the index.
>
> This may well be false economy. I don't have numbers at hand, but a
> full rebuild can be substantially faster than adding a large number
> of rows to the index incrementally. Also, you don't end up with a
> physically disordered index, so there is some ongoing performance
> benefit.
But deferring the index updates allows you to play games with the
the index input data, such as presorting it in order to take
advantage of locality of data.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGDGC5S9HxQb37XmcRAk1nAJwNb72P1ZBFxA8jv2d7eo2GOMTvYQCgukr7
QbOAq/Sd88ZHeOTOt+pAgcM=
=A1+E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lew | 2007-03-30 01:20:53 | Re: Deleted Flag/Unique Constraint |
Previous Message | Bryan Murphy | 2007-03-30 00:31:10 | Re: Deleted Flag/Unique Constraint |