X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886EF9DC803 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:13:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21894-02 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:13:23 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from server.gpdnet.co.uk (gpdnet.plus.com [212.56.100.243]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E77C9DC843 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:13:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [192.168.1.2]) by server.gpdnet.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB753AAB28; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:23:59 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43F398F3.30105@gpdnet.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:11:15 +0000 From: Gary Doades User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Strange Create Index behaviour References: <43F38867.6010701@gpdnet.co.uk> <19510.1140036968@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <19510.1140036968@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.12 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120] X-Spam-Score: 0.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/216 X-Sequence-Number: 17202 Tom Lane wrote: > shared_buffers is unlikely to impact index build time noticeably in > recent PG releases. maintenance_work_mem would affect it a lot, though. > What setting were you using for that? > Also, i tried upping maintenance_work_mem to 65536 and it didn't make much difference (maybe 10% faster for the "normal" cases). Upping the shared_buffers *definitely* makes the bad cases worse though, but I agree I don't see why... Regards, Gary.