X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18F211F68DC for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:06:38 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: -1.705 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.705 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.625, BAYES_00=-2.599, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.135, SPF_SOFTFAIL=1.384] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15H758mo6aSY for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:06:21 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from amanda.contactbda.com (ipn36372-e65122.cidr.lightship.net [216.204.66.226]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4B711F6551 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:06:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from amanda.contactbda.com (amanda.contactbda.com [192.168.1.2]) by amanda.contactbda.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k3KF6E1L023404; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:06:14 -0400 From: "Jim Buttafuoco" To: "Luke Lonergan" , "Simon Dale" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Reply-To: jim@contactbda.com Subject: Re: Quick Performance Poll Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:06:14 -0400 Message-Id: <20060420150533.M78785@contactbda.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20060420143830.M5360@contactbda.com> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.41 20040926 X-OriginatingIP: 192.168.1.1 (jim) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Archive-Number: 200604/452 X-Sequence-Number: 18536 I have been following your work with great interest. I believe I spoke to someone from Greenplum at linux world in Boston a couple of weeks ago. ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Luke Lonergan" To: jim@contactbda.com, "Simon Dale" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Sent: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:03:10 -0700 Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Quick Performance Poll > Jim, > > On 4/20/06 7:40 AM, "Jim Buttafuoco" wrote: > > > First of all this is NOT a single table and yes I am using partitioning and > > the constaint exclusion stuff. the largest > > set of tables is over 2T. I have not had to rebuild the biggest database yet, > > but for a smaller one ~1T the restore > > takes about 12 hours including many indexes on both large and small tables > > You would probably benefit greatly from the new on-disk bitmap index feature > in Bizgres Open Source. It's 8.1 plus the sort speed improvement and > on-disk bitmap index. > > Index creation and sizes for the binary version are in the table below (from > a performance report on bizgres network. The version in CVS tip on > pgfoundry is much faster on index creation as well. > > The current drawback to bitmap index is that it isn't very maintainable > under insert/update, although it is safe for those operations. For now, you > have to drop index, do inserts/updates, rebuild index. > > We'll have a version that is maintained for insert/update next. > > - Luke > > # Indexed Columns Create Time (seconds) Space Used (MBs) > BITMAP BTREE BITMAP BTREE > 1 L_SHIPMODE 454.8 2217.1 58 1804 > 2 L_QUANTITY 547.2 937.8 117 1804 > 3 L_LINENUMBER 374.5 412.4 59 1285 > 4 L_SHIPMODE, L_QUANTITY 948.7 2933.4 176 2845 > 5 O_ORDERSTATUS 83.5 241.3 5 321 > 6 O_ORDERPRIORITY 108.5 679.1 11 580 > 7 C_MKTSEGMENT 10.9 51.3 1 45 > 8 C_NATIONKEY 8.3 9.3 2 32 ------- End of Original Message -------