X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25399FA42B for ; Sun, 7 May 2006 00:09:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29789-01 for ; Sun, 7 May 2006 00:09:23 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mta11.adelphia.net (mta11.adelphia.net [68.168.78.205]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FF09FA2FA for ; Sun, 7 May 2006 00:09:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [10.1.2.102] (really [70.33.56.85]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060507030922.LPGC9009.mta11.adelphia.net@[10.1.2.102]> for ; Sat, 6 May 2006 23:09:22 -0400 From: "Ed L." To: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: pg_dump index creation order Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 21:09:20 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <200605061915.55712.pgsql@bluepolka.net> In-Reply-To: <200605061915.55712.pgsql@bluepolka.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605062109.21084.pgsql@bluepolka.net> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/127 X-Sequence-Number: 18914 On Saturday May 6 2006 7:15 pm, Ed L. wrote: > I'm watching a long, painfully slow 60GB load from pg_dump > (8.1.2), and noticing it's jumping back and forth from > different tables. I assume this is the index creation order > showing up. > > Would it make more sense to have pg_dump dump indexes grouped > by the table? That way, if a table got loaded into cache for > one index creation, it might still be there for the immediatly > following index creations on the same table... And would same idea work for ordering of constraint adding...? Ed