Re: Index creation takes more time?

From: Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>
To: Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)unicell(dot)co(dot)il>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz
Subject: Re: Index creation takes more time?
Date: 2012-09-17 03:56:27
Message-ID: 50569F6B.6000304@ringerc.id.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Herouth,

I don't know if you saw Tomas Vondra's follow-up, as it was only to the
list and not CC'd to you. Here's the archive link:

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/e87a2f7a91ce1fca7143bcadc4553a0b@fuzzy.cz

The short version: "More information required".

On 09/09/2012 05:25 PM, Herouth Maoz wrote:
> We have tables which we archive and shorten every day. That is - the main table that has daily inserts and updates is kept small, and there is a parallel table with all the old data up to a year ago.
>
> In the past we noticed that the bulk transfer from the main table to the archive table takes a very long time, so we decided to do this in three steps: (1) drop indexes on the archive table, (2) insert a week's worth of data into the archive table. (3) recreate the indexes. This proved to take much less time than having each row update the index.
>
> However, this week we finally upgraded from PG 8.3 to 9.1, and suddenly, the archiving process takes a lot more time than it used to - 14:30 hours for the most important table, to be exact, spent only on index creation.
>
> The same work running on the same data in 8.3 on a much weaker PC took merely 4:30 hours.
>
> There are 8 indexes on the archive table.
>
> The size of the main table is currently (after archive) 7,805,009 records.
> The size of the archive table is currently 177,328,412 records.
>
> Has there been a major change in index creation that would cause 9.1 to do it this much slower? Should I go back to simply copying over the data or is the whole concept breaking down?
>
>
> TIA,
> Herouth
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2012-09-17 04:42:39 Re: Windows Services and Postgresql 9.1.3
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2012-09-17 03:17:54 Re: Compressed binary field