From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Rahila <rahila.syed@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:43:24 +0100
Message-ID: <20190310174324.GA26948@fetter.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190304204607.GA15946@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <17b0f8fd-b51b-ee83-0ec8-9e363ba1d9c6@2ndquadrant.com>
<20190304204607.GA15946@alvherre.pgsql>
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 05:46:07PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hi Rahila,
>
> Thanks for looking.
>
> On 2019-Mar-04, Rahila wrote:
>
> > 1. Thank you for incorporating review comments.
> > Can you please rebase the latest 0001-Report-progress-of-
> > CREATE-INDEX-operations.patch on master? Currently it does not apply on
> > 754b90f657bd54b482524b73726dae4a9165031c
>
> Hmm, rebased to current master. Didn't conflict at all when rebasing,
> so it's strange that it didn't apply.
>
> > > 15:56:44.694 | building index (3 of 8): initializing (1/5) | 442478 | 442399 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
> > > 15:56:44.705 | building index (3 of 8): sorting tuples, spool 1 (3/5) | 442478 | 442399 | 100000000 | 0 | 0 | 0
> > > 15:56:44.716 | building index (3 of 8): sorting tuples, spool 1 (3/5) | 442478 | 442399 | 100000000 | 0 | 0 | 0
> > > 15:56:44.727 | building index (3 of 8): final btree sort & load (5/5) | 442478 | 442399 | 100000000 | 79057 | 0 | 0
> > > 15:56:44.738 | building index (3 of 8): final btree sort & load (5/5) | 442478 | 442399 | 100000000 | 217018 | 0 | 0
> > > 15:56:44.75 | building index (3 of 8): final btree sort & load (5/5) | 442478 | 442399 | 100000000 | 353804 | 0 | 0
> > 2. In the above report, even though we are reporting progress in terms of
> > tuples_done for final btree sort & load phase we have not cleared
> > the blocks_done entry from previous phases. I think this can be confusing as
> > the blocks_done does not correspond to the tuples_done in the final btree
> > sort & load phase.
>
> Good point. Done in the attached version, wherein I also added comments
> to explain the IndexBuildHeapScan API change. I didn't change the hash
> AM implementation here.
Would it be a very large lift to report progress for the rest of the
index types we support?
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: david@fetter.org, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, rahila.syed@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY]
In-Reply-To: <20190310174324.GA26948@fetter.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox