MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKna9VaOt_FPSSdMQaF0abiAPLdN1jB9renORV+ky2mP1_nDRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD=mzVXtgnFxk0uE6=yaJX8JYY6kt4UiUc-kqi=MyUOCmWp3hg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKna9VYFnmcj0m4FtfMsEQbW8-5QSg8=najLbs-DBHMwtDR=DQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKna9VYFnmcj0m4FtfMsEQbW8-5QSg8=najLbs-DBHMwtDR=DQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lok P <loknath.73@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:39:56 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKna9VZXweP1os0YnhYMcvyKHP6NQS7rCCkW-H==KVK=E0ZHPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Creating big indexes
To: sud <suds1434@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009c8292061a708f3d"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKna9VZXweP1os0YnhYMcvyKHP6NQS7rCCkW-H%3D%3DKVK%3DE0ZHPw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--0000000000009c8292061a708f3d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 10:39=E2=80=AFAM Lok P <loknath.73@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 10:36=E2=80=AFAM sud <suds1434@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>  You can first create the index on the table using the "On ONLY"keyword,
>> something as below.
>>
>> CREATE INDEX idx ON ONLY tab(col1);
>>
>> Then create indexes on each partition in "concurrently" from multiple
>> sessions in chunks.
>>
>> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY idx_1    ON tab_part1(col1);
>> CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY idx_2    ON tab_part2(col1);
>>
>> After this step finishes the table level index which was created in the
>> first step will be in valid state automatically.
>>
>>
> Thank you so much.
> Should we also tweak the parameters related to the parallelism and memory
> as I mentioned in the first post?
>

Additionally ,is it also possible to drop the indexes also from the big
partition table efficiently? To avoid the "transaction id wrap around" or
"table bloat" when the index drop runs for longer duration?

--0000000000009c8292061a708f3d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 10:39=E2=80=AFAM L=
ok P &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:loknath.73@gmail.com">loknath.73@gmail.com</a>&g=
t; wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,20=
4);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, Jun 9, 2=
024 at 10:36=E2=80=AFAM sud &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:suds1434@gmail.com" targe=
t=3D"_blank">suds1434@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>=C2=A0You can first create the index on t=
he table using the &quot;On ONLY&quot;keyword, something as below.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>CREATE INDEX idx ON ONLY tab(col1);<br></div><div><br></di=
v><div>Then create indexes on each partition in &quot;concurrently&quot; fr=
om multiple sessions in chunks.</div><div><br></div><div>CREATE INDEX CONCU=
RRENTLY idx_1=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ON tab_part1(col1);<br>CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY=
 idx_2=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ON tab_part2(col1);<br></div><div><br></div><div>After =
this step finishes the table level index which was created in the first ste=
p will be in valid state automatically.</div><div><br></div></div></div></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>Thank you so much.</div><div>Should we also t=
weak the parameters related to the parallelism and memory as I mentioned in=
 the first post?=C2=A0</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ad=
ditionally ,is it also possible to drop the indexes also from the big parti=
tion table efficiently? To avoid the &quot;transaction id wrap around&quot;=
 or &quot;table bloat&quot; when the=C2=A0index drop runs for longer durati=
on?</div><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div>

--0000000000009c8292061a708f3d--