Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494E06339A9 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:20:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 89543-09-2 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:20:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from serenity.inversion.ee (serenity.inversion.ee [194.204.33.112]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F921633611 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:20:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: by serenity.inversion.ee (Postfix, from userid 108) id 3C813E34632; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:07:16 +0200 (EET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serenity.inversion.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824A2E34067; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:07:15 +0200 (EET) Subject: Re: Building multiple indexes concurrently From: Hannu Krosing To: Justin Pitts Cc: Greg Smith , Alvaro Herrera , Andres Freund , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Rob Wultsch , Tom Lane In-Reply-To: <19B3D67A-3182-4323-B70D-CAD612F167A8@gmail.com> References: <2c5ef4e31003161804l5e32ceb9v6b7019118f30004d@mail.gmail.com> <2c5ef4e31003170807x3f26dd77v57a1631094bc5270@mail.gmail.com> <4BA12328.4080803@2ndquadrant.com> <201003172024.10538.andres@anarazel.de> <20100317202401.GC3902@alvh.no-ip.org> <4BA1403D.9030402@2ndquadrant.com> <1268860727.19220.1089.camel@hvost> <19B3D67A-3182-4323-B70D-CAD612F167A8@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:20:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1268947235.19220.2472.camel@hvost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/276 X-Sequence-Number: 38101 On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 16:12 -0400, Justin Pitts wrote: > It seems to me that a separate partition / tablespace would be a much simpler approach. Do you mean a separate partition/ tablespace for _each_ index built concurrently ? > On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:49 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> Andres Freund escribió: > >>> > >>> > >>>> I find it way much easier to believe such issues exist on a tables in > >>>> constrast to indexes. The likelihood to get sequential accesses on an index is > >>>> small enough on a big table to make it unlikely to matter much. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Vacuum walks indexes sequentially, for one. > >>> > >> > >> That and index-based range scans were the main two use-cases I was > >> concerned would be degraded by interleaving index builds, compared with > >> doing them in succession. > > > > I guess that tweaking file systems to allocate in bigger chunks help > > here ? I know that xfs can be tuned in that regard, but how about other > > common file systems like ext3 ? > > > > - > > Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com > > PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability > > Services, Consulting and Training > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > > To make changes to your subscription: > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability Services, Consulting and Training