X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6877C9DCCA8; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:50:51 -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 77787-10; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:50:55 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (houston.au.fhnetwork.com [203.22.197.21]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991AD9DCC99; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:50:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4242508A; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:50:49 +0800 (WST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (work-40.internal [192.168.0.40]) by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A612506B; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:50:46 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <43F3DAEE.30002@familyhealth.com.au> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:52:46 +0800 From: Christopher Kings-Lynne User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Doades Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: qsort again (was Re: [PERFORM] Strange Create Index behaviour) References: <43F38867.6010701@gpdnet.co.uk> <19510.1140036968@sss.pgh.pa.us> <19779.1140038874@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43F39E53.1020009@gpdnet.co.uk> <20781.1140046109@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43F3BF72.6000202@gpdnet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <43F3BF72.6000202@gpdnet.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-familyhealth-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-familyhealth-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-familyhealth-MailScanner-From: chriskl@familyhealth.com.au X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.093 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093] X-Spam-Score: 0.093 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/599 X-Sequence-Number: 79737 > Ouch! That confirms my problem. I generated the random test case because > it was easier than including the dump of my tables, but you can > appreciate that tables 20 times the size are basically crippled when it > comes to creating an index on them. I have to say that I restored a few gigabyte dump on freebsd the other day, and most of the restore time was in index creation - I didn't think too much of it though at the time. FreeBSD 4.x. Chris